4-12 wish list (Merged)

[Whacker]

Farther range of POV like POV-mod but not so exagerated. 10 to 110° would do I think. Attachable to a scrolling device or similliar, so POV can be zoomed stepless.

Not nearly enough. I fly at 155 POV, so do others. I haven't seen anyone else claim over 155 so this could hopefully suffice.

[Wiesel]

Please TD, im from the German forum, which is 'dead' since the new design has been activated...:(

I love your patches, great work!

Now my questions.. ;)
Will there be any new Japanese planes? (maybe flyable)
Will there be a new German or American (B-24) bomber?
...
...

Lot's of thanks, and greetings from Germany!
Wiesel

[RegRag1977]

What about having better debris textures? It would be much appreciated especially when firing only machine guns equipped aircraft... Just something looking more like small irregular metal parts would do the trick, what do you think, is it possible to do?

What about having (along with rookie, average, vet, ace) another option like random, so we cannot know what to expect. Could also be nice to set a QMB fight with random aircraft types, just for the pleasure of the surprise and to work identification skills.

Anyway TD, you guys rock!

[shelby]

Battle of El Alamein
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tmAX3Hfb8

[JtD]

Please TD, im from the German forum, which is 'dead' since the new design has been activated...:(Yes, that design sucks.
Now my questions.. ;)
Will there be any new Japanese planes? (maybe flyable)
Will there be a new German or American (B-24) bomber?I suggest you keep looking for the the updates, where'd be the fun if we told everything now?

[Wiesel]

Yes, that design sucks.
I suggest you keep looking for the the updates, where'd be the fun if we told everything now?

:) haha, yes.

I simply asked, i hoped perhaps you would say something someone;)

[shelby]

Dewoitine D.520, Nakajima Ki-34, Nakajima Ki-44, Nakajima Ki-49, Nakajima J1N, Nakajima J5N, Nakajima C6N, Nakajima Ki-115, Nakajima Kikka, Yokosuka D4Y, Aichi D3A2

[Alien]

This, wishlist, what

[shelby]

This, wishlist, what
List of planes that i hope to be made for the upcoming patch

[JtD]

It's about a dozen years worth of work, just so you know what you're asking for.

[Tuco22]

Widescreen support... omg i would love you guys long tiem...

[SPAD-1949]

"runway lights off" command

[SPAD-1949]

(cough cough...) FFB (cough ..cough ...cough) WIN/ALT TAB Key. (cough ... cough cough...... cough) dissappears....

You need at least one prog window running in the background, then alt+tab works, or did I misundersand you?

[Juri_JS]

Does TD have any plans to improve the map textures? The textures from the Slovakia map and some of the other new maps are good, but the old eastern Europe and Pacific maps really need an update.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Does TD have any plans to improve the map textures? The textures from the Slovakia map and some of the other new maps are good, but the old eastern Europe and Pacific maps really need an update.


Yes we have, but its out of timeline scope. Means: we don't know, when.

[Lagarto]

Talking about map textures - is there a way to make roads run in a more natural way, not zigzag the way they do now, or is it something the game's engine can't handle?

[Ace1staller]

I got a good one on the wish list, how about a Ar-196 as a flyable

[SPAD-1949]

I got a good one on the wish list, how about a Ar-196 as a flyable

+1
I built several missions, whee I have to fly a Rufe instead of a Ar196.
And as mentioned before, let us please be shot of cats.
I once tried a workaround where I used a static ship and a rufe which first waypoint was clealx set on the cat with good beginning speed in accurate height, but clearly, I crashed evry time.

[mcmmielli]

Ok. That´s my wish list for 4.12:
-New cockpits for P-47´s.
-Repaint cockpit for p.11 - IL-2´s - Lagg´s - La´s - Mig´s - Yak´s - Bf-109´s - G.50 -TB-3
-IL-2 Field Mod 1941 with Playable Gunner Position.
-P-38 Lightning with a Gyro-Sight.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v461/gibbage/p-38withK14.jpg

-Flyables:
M.S.406/410
Mörkö-Morane
Fiat G-55
Re.2002
Ki-21

-New planes or versions of planes:
P-38 early versions.
P-47C/B versions.
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/URG/images/p38-32.jpg
Fiat G.50bis (bomber rack)
http://italianaircraftofwwii.devhub.com/img/upload/sggrsrrgf.jpg
Fiat G.42bis/ter/cn
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/659651-2/CR42CN-2
http://www.ww2incolor.com/d/659654-2/CR42CN
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/archive/f/f7/20120221145149!Fiat_C.R.42CN.jpg
http://hyperscale.com/2007/galleries/images/cr42cnartworklb_1.jpg
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/attachments/aircraft-picture-requests/185549d1323220753t-night-fighter-cr-42cn-cr.4222.jpg
Ki-44 "Tojo".
Gloster meteor
Nakajima Kikka
One Britsh heavy bomber (Lancaster or Halifax) could be AI
Ba.65/Ba-65bis (we have some Italian´s fighters and bombers but not one Ground attack)aircraft)
Some more french aircrafts.

- Please add new countries in game.

Sorry for this big list, please is possible add this mod:
- Avia BK-534 (by Stoupa)- plane and cockpit done and this autor is the same of B-534:
http://i988.photobucket.com/albums/af2/Stoupa/AviaBk534defaulty.jpg

Tank´s DT.

[char_aznable]

Ok. That´s my wish list for 4.12:All respectable wishes... But:
There weren't any CR.42bis and ter, CR.42CN needs also underwing lights but it was a very unsuccessful aircraft, no Breda 65bis also, only Serie I/Isotta Fraschini K.14 engined and Serie II/Fiat A.80 engined, anyway they were used only during June 1940 - January 1941.
G.50bis or an anyway more detailed Italian one could have that ClOD issue.
What do you mean with "new countries"? AFAIK all major Countries, for the existing maps, are included in game.

[SPAD-1949]

Ok. That´s my wish list for 4.12:

- Please add new countries in game.



Oh jes, and the possibility to create own nationalities with own roundels and so on...
Like, Pigs vs Rabbbits or so ;-)

[Pips]

Has any consideration been given to increasing the size of the pixel (if that's the right word) for distant aircraft? I know a lot of guys (including me) fly online in 1024x768 res so that we an spot distant aircraft (bogeys) and position to advantage - even if we're not sure if they are friend or foe.

The sad thing is that once your used to getting the best from graphics in 1680x1050 res or higher, 1024x768 is just awful!

[Z1024]

Just wondering how much work is involved in adding widescreen support and higher resolutions? I tried tinkering with the config files and it kinda works, but all the visual clues in open pit (plane pointers/arrows/labels etc) are off. Maybe there are other issues but I haven't noticed.
My point is that most (if not all) modern Dispays are widescreen so it would make sense to update the game to support these resolutions - at least the 16:9 ratio. For instance 1920x1080 since it's probably the most common one.

[Ventura]

-C-47 default skins pre-1944 still show with the invasion stripes.

-SBD-3 default skin pre-1943 show as stars and bars instead of the older star roundels (no bars) Strangely, on the early Guadalcanal map, I have seen it sometime revert to an older roundel skin in the 'type' tab (only).

-F4F-4 pre-1943 default skin defaults to the older 'Wake' Island scheme (front nose cowl is partly white) but again, I have seen a real nice older roundel default skin (no white cowl, different tone blue) in the 'type' tab (only) which when I tab on the specific planes, makes both go to the older 'Wake' Island scheme.

-Japanese dual and triple 25mm AA guns seems too lethal.

[nic727]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksntjC47858&feature=plcp

You can see new craters model at 7:25

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9ghHfYd6PQ&feature=context-chv

At 4:48 new smoke effect for crashed planes

[mcmmielli]

All respectable wishes... But:
There weren't any CR.42bis and ter, CR.42CN needs also underwing lights but it was a very unsuccessful aircraft, no Breda 65bis also, only Serie I/Isotta Fraschini K.14 engined and Serie II/Fiat A.80 engined, anyway they were used only during June 1940 - January 1941.
G.50bis or an anyway more detailed Italian one could have that ClOD issue.
What do you mean with "new countries"? AFAIK all major Countries, for the existing maps, are included in game.

Ops! sorry the version is Fiat C.42 AS:
http://italie1935-45.forumactif.org/t1124-le-fiat-cr42-falco

http://i66.servimg.com/u/f66/14/36/08/34/fiat-c39.jpg
http://i66.servimg.com/u/f66/14/36/08/34/fiat_c19.jpg
Fiat CR42 AS

Some curiosities:
http://i66.servimg.com/u/f66/14/36/08/34/proto_10.jpg
http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/4716/cr42dbf1zv6.jpg
Fiat CR42 DB

http://i66.servimg.com/u/f66/14/36/08/34/fiat-c44.jpg
ICR 42

Some impotant nations are forgotton, the most important is China and maybe some others could be add:
Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechoslovakia
Denmark
Greece

Sorry for this others questions but, is any chance this be include in game: Letov S-328 cockpit (pilot all most done by stoupa, need gunner and bombardier positions) and Avia BK-534 (by Stoupa to, and the plane is done and imported in game was a mod)?

Tank´s for your reply.

[=FPS=Salsero]

134...

135. Is it possible to make BF-110 tailgunner to look a bit down by default? so that in a level flight he will be able to see the tail?

-------------------------
Could we get all the questions answered in a very brief manner? I.e.

Can't/won't do it;Maybe in 4.13or later;Maybe in 4.12 or later;Very likely in 4.12;Yes, in 4.12;Request not understood, please clarify.

[Lonestar]

Hi,
In relation to this request:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=383051&postcount=13
Would it alternatively be possible, that ships can no longer collide with already sunken ships?
I know its not very realistic, but would greatly help when creating scripted evasive maneuvering for Task Forces and ship convoys!
Thanks!

[Aviar]

Hi,
In relation to this request:
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=383051&postcount=13
Would it alternatively be possible, that ships can no longer collide with already sunken ships?
I know its not very realistic, but would greatly help when creating scripted evasive maneuvering for Task Forces and ship convoys!
Thanks!

"...ships can no longer collide with already sunken ships?"

Do you mean ships that are in the process of sinking but still not fully underwater? If so, I would not want that kind of 'feature'. I don't want to see one ship sailing 'through' another ship....sinking or not.

Better to ask for possible evasive maneuvers by the AI, IMO.

Aviar

[Lonestar]

"...ships can no longer collide with already sunken ships?"

Do you mean ships that are in the process of sinking but still not fully underwater? If so, I would not want that kind of 'feature'. I don't want to see one ship sailing 'through' another ship....sinking or not.

Better to ask for possible evasive maneuvers by the AI, IMO.

Aviar

Hi,
As I said, as an alternative, if the requested ship AI should not be added!
Ships can already sail through landscapes and vehicles can drive through each other, which helps a lot in certain situations during campaigns, like narrow waterways or bridges!

[Blakhart]

Hello!

4.10.1 was a big step for quality of offline flying ( new AI ).

4.11.1 is a big step for more real on-line playing ( engine managment ).


What is now needed ???


I m flying il2 few years, stock, mod versions, dgf, coop, virt fronts, campaigns, duels, etc. everything...

4.10 brings different damage model ( from +/-G) but didnt changed behave of a pilot.


Its now most biggest bug!!!

Some planes like Tempest, FW, P51 etc. can be easily destroyed by too much G without ANY warning from grey out or black out effecting on a pilot.

What I want to say is that in real pilot feels on himself when he pull too much, when he needs to stop use more G and in game is like.

+1,+2,+3,+4,+5 ---> nothing happen
etc,etc+ crash!!!

Plane damaged or even without wing ;/.


Its stupid, unrealistic. Pilot should feel G on himself from about 5-6 G to know he pull too much.

6-7 little grey out on corners and 8-10 G few seconds ok and more and more grey screen.

Now you can pull hard on FW and destroy wings WITHOUT any grey out even ;/, leave your wings on Tempest with only few neg G ;(.


So:
- more realistic G which have more effect on pilot, now il2 pilot is like a terminator with G-suit

( if its possible to add, slower 6DOF working with lots of G, its f*king hard to track your target when you are in hard turn with 4-6 G!!!, With 5-7 g its hard to move your arms, so imagine how hard to use your neck!!!)

(* adding fatigue factor to il2 pilot behave ---> more hard G, less strengh for flying, for example 5 min of 5-6, 7-8 G fight ==> total exhausted organism, not enough strengh to pull more like with soft bleeding or pilot hit )

I know that game have its limits. I dont expect miracles. I just wanted to show where you can look in future.



Its my feelings based on real flying vs il2. I dont want to talk about my life on forum, but if crew daidalos is interested about opinion I can share my experience on pm.

[Aviar]

Good post Blakhart. In addition to visual cues, what do you think about some additional aural cues?

We already have some structural stress cues in the form of airframe 'creaking', but maybe this can be further tweaked. I mean, if we are going to 'bend the airframe' as the 4.10 Guide states, then maybe a little more warning could be helpful.

In the 4.10 Guide it states that if '...you have exceeded the “in service” limit (G's), you will hear a damage sound cue and suffer a slight aerodynamic penalty.'

Well, by that time it's too late. wouldn't some additional 'stress' warnings BEFORE actual damage be helpful here?

Also, how about some cues from our virtual pilot? I've played some flight sims where the pilot will give the player cues in the form of heavy breathing/groaning as the G's become more intense. This 'breathing/groaning' can possibly warn us BEFORE we damage the airframe.

Aviar

[JtD]

The pilot starts to suffer from g's at about 4g. Typical fighter air frames can take 8g without problem. However, humans can take very high g loads without problem if they occur over a short time, while the airframe can't. It's the same in game. If you're in a sustained manoeuvre you won't damage the airframe, the pilot will grey out, black out or red out long before damage occurs, however, if you throw the plane into a sudden manoeuvre, it may break before you get the visual clues. This is right because the body won't show a reaction within a split second.

[Blakhart]

JtD, to be honest you start to have problems with moving your head with 3G.

With 4 G its hard.

With 5 G it becomes frustrating and after 5 min hard turn to turn manouvering you become tired.

Add battle stres and G effecting on a body, heart beat, etc.

With training you can improve your toughness but you still have some limits.

"However, humans can take very high g loads without problem if they occur over a short time, while the airframe can't. It's the same in game. If you're in a sustained manoeuvre you won't damage the airframe, the pilot will grey out, black out or red out long before damage occurs, however, if you throw the plane into a sudden manoeuvre, it may break before you get the visual clues. This is right because the body won't show a reaction within a split second."

Not true...

And its not something I read in books.


You feel high G instantly. Even it is few seconds manouver your body, organism gonna feel growing up G at about 5-6.

It wont made you grey out, etc. but you gonna feel it. And definitly you gonna feel when G starts to be about 7-8 G.


Aviar would be best to talk about it on TS. What you think about it ?
I think some red aura without decrasing player screen when G have about 5-7 would be good.

[JtD]

You're talking about a few seconds, I'm talking about a split second. Try to maintain 5-6g for a few seconds in game, your pilot will grey out, and the plane will stay intact.

Outside of some simple force feedback there's no "feel" output on most computers. That's a shortcoming software alone can't fix.

[Ventura]

Concur with both BlakHart and Aviar.
Unless that little 'G' letter is neon and or larger, I ain't gonna know until it's too late and the structural damage occurs.

Just yesterday, I was battling vs a FW-190 (breather) in a tight maneuver, my vision was focused on the FW and had not noticed that flashing 'G' until I heard the groan-snap and it had happened. Placing that little 'G' anywhere else may loose the immersion of the moment. Earlier frame sounds and/or pilot breathing is probably best solution.

[Aviar]

Outside of some simple force feedback there's no "feel" output on most computers. That's a shortcoming software alone can't fix.

With all due respect, this discussion is exactly about trying to 'fix' the shortcomings of our software.

Your last sentence sounds like a person who has given up. Personally, I don't feel like that. I think more can be done to help give the player just a little more of that 'feeling' of being a real-life pilot.

I know I'm just a person sitting in front of a monitor, playing a game. However, sometimes....just sometimes, there are those magical moments when reality slips away and you are really there.....cruising over the Solomons, 1944....landing on a forgotten runway in the Crimea on a cold winter morning.

What we are talking about here are possibilities that can create more of those magical moments. What we need are people who still believe in those possibilities.

Aviar

[Whacker]

With all due respect, this discussion is exactly about trying to 'fix' the shortcomings of our software.

Your last sentence sounds like a person who has given up. Personally, I don't feel like that. I think more can be done to help give the player just a little more of that 'feeling' of being a real-life pilot.

I know I'm just a person sitting in front of a monitor, playing a game. However, sometimes....just sometimes, there are those magical moments when reality slips away and you are really there.....cruising over the Solomons, 1944....landing on a forgotten runway in the Crimea on a cold winter morning.

What we are talking about here are possibilities that can create more of those magical moments. What we need are people who still believe in those possibilities.

Aviar

He is right though. There is absolutely zero substitute for the physical sensations that come along with actual flight. Vibrations, jostling, g-forces, the sounds, smells, all of it makes the experience complete and whole.

That said, agree with your statements. We recognize those limitations, and we do our best within the bounds we have to make the best possible approximation of reality. I think the other major aspect of immersion is what you said, which I would phrase as a "willingness" to allow oneself to be in a certain mindset. I've gotten mildly airsick a few rare times when going nuts during dogfights. I've experienced vertigo, and find myself tilting my head in turns. I've jumped half out of my chair a few times when I suddenly get peppered with bullets and I wasn't expecting anything at all. All in all it's a two way street.

[JtD]

I certainly haven't "given up". I haven't overstressed an airframe for ages. And I don't want a heavy breather on my PC speakers. And you'd still rip off your wings before a breathing sample is played.
You're trying to solve a problem I don't perceive as a problem any more, and I don't like the suggested solutions. So what you are suggesting would make it in fact worse for me. I've been thinking about this a lot with 4.10, I and the most desirable solution was to adjust my flying style.

[SPAD-1949]

I often thought about a additional device to handle G-forces for the player.
Something like an addductor training device which is posed between your knees and has to be pressed to keep grey or black out away. It stresses the whole lower belly and inner shank muscles and it would induce battle fatigue on a very natural way and gives advantage to the user with much experiance because of the training effect that comes along with excessive use ;-) The design should enable pedal use and can be adjusted to personal preferences.
For those online players who dont use that device blackout occurs at an average level and those who use it can experience faster blackout or if trained way delayed effects.

[Blakhart]

I certainly haven't "given up". I haven't overstressed an airframe for ages. And I don't want a heavy breather on my PC speakers. And you'd still rip off your wings before a breathing sample is played.
You're trying to solve a problem I don't perceive as a problem any more, and I don't like the suggested solutions. So what you are suggesting would make it in fact worse for me. I've been thinking about this a lot with 4.10, I and the most desirable solution was to adjust my flying style.


Egoistic, ignorant opinion, BTW do you fly on-line sometimes ???

Im practic not theoric and in practic there is a big need of such solution.

And what is more important, did you ever felt G in manouver combat m8 ??

Its not an offence.

In real flight you would feel G before damaging airframe, this is fact thats all. There is no discusion about it.

And Its not based on "my friends" opinion.

Its based on my real experience as a real pilot and to be honest I drived in my life sth more than small Cessna.

Nowadays in il2 airframe is damaged to quick before ANY warning on some planes and its un-real bug which should be fixed if possible.

1 option add warning - breathing, red aura, etc

2 option fix airframe damage in Tempest, Spiti, FW, P51 because now its more funny than even arcade ;]

Cheers.

[SPAD-1949]

The Human Body consists widely of fluids in Narrow containments.
It takes a small ammount of time to allow the blood widen the vessels and follow inertia.
Therefore it is possible for martial arts fighters to break concrete slabs wthout beeing hurt and this is also the reason why red bull air racers are restricted to 10 or 11g reached at the top of the turn loop because the aircraft could break, while the pilots withstand this forces induced for a very short time with ease. Exeeding 11g leads to disqualification.

[JtD]

Its not an offence.But it is, so feel free to continue discussion this without my participation.

[Luno13]

I often thought about a additional device to handle G-forces for the player.
Something like an addductor training device which is posed between your knees and has to be pressed to keep grey or black out away. It stresses the whole lower belly and inner shank muscles and it would induce battle fatigue on a very natural way and gives advantage to the user with much experiance because of the training effect that comes along with excessive use ;-) The design should enable pedal use and can be adjusted to personal preferences.
For those online players who dont use that device blackout occurs at an average level and those who use it can experience faster blackout or if trained way delayed effects.

Great! Now just give one to every player/make him use it so that it's fair online ;)


Now, according to the literature, the human body does not "react" to the impact of G's in the first split second if its application. What I mean by this is are symptoms: G-lock, blackout, etc. The pilot can still feel the weight change, but whether or not he saves the wings of his plane depends on how quickly he can react and reverse the maneuver.

Again, this all happens in a split second. I think anyone could make the mistake of continuing the pull.

So, in the case of the Mustang which as a very light elevator that does not stiffen at high speeds, the pilot can easily reach max-G of the airframe and shed the wings before his own body has reacted - loss of blood to the head, blackout, etc. The pilot will feel the weight, but it's hard to quantify G's just by feel (that's why they put gauges in the planes) so he may not change his flight path accordingly or quickly enough.

Therefore, I feel, that in the visual sense, Il-2 models this very well, and nothing needs to change in that regard. The option could be enabled for an extra G-meter parameter: green "G" is 1-4 G; yellow is 4-6; red means airframe is in danger of permanent stress damage; flashing red red indicates risk of catastrophic failure.

But again, it needs to be an option. I certainly don't want any text indications on the screen that I don't need.

But also, it's a case of flying dicta: If shedding wings is still a problem, then don't make those hard pulls! Use gentle, smooth control inputs, and try to outsmart rather than try to out-turn your enemy. In the case of the Mustang, pilots had to push forward on the stick to reduce the rate of turn to avoid G-stress...in Il-2 it is the same.

Oh, and Blackhart, I'm curious - just what exactly did you fly? Were you PIC?

[zanzark]

Ambient sounds like Rain and Thunders cannot be heard from inside the aircraft (at least with Bf109F)

The "Return to Base imediately" message should be delayed, to first check if the aircraft wasn't completely destroyed, as it's pointless to ask a dead guy to return to base.

[GBrutus]

Apologies if this has already been requested but would it be possible to prevent AI Spifires deploying flaps on take off?

[Lagarto]

I wish the AI's behavior when landing were changed to something more realistic and aggressive. Once they enter their landing pattern, they don't react to being attacked. Shouldn't they break off and engage?

[[URU]BlackFox]

In coops, the objectives are shown always independently from the side you choose. That means that I'm seeing a "Destroy ground" set for the Red side even if I have selected a Blue plane (for this side it should read "Defend ground").

In some online servers I've seen this kind of target reporting, but I think it was some modded one.

If the feature could be implemented, it would be great for FoF flyers.

[Aviar]

BlackFox;430706']In coops, the objectives are shown always independently from the side you choose. That means that I'm seeing a "Destroy ground" set for the Red side even if I have selected a Blue plane (for this side it should read "Defend ground").

In some online servers I've seen this kind of target reporting, but I think it was some modded one.

If the feature could be implemented, it would be great for FoF flyers.


Totally agree. Modders have already fixed this long ago.

If Red sees 'Destroy Ground' on their map, Blue SHOULD see 'Defend Ground'.

Aviar

[Bearcat]

Hey TD .. How about adding that waving flag mod to the stock sim.. It is a great touch and uses very little resources.. Are you familiar with it?

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Hey TD .. How about adding that waving flag mod to the stock sim.. It is a great touch and uses very little resources.. Are you familiar with it?

I'm personally not. :)

[Ace1staller]

All respectable wishes... But:
There weren't any CR.42bis and ter, CR.42CN needs also underwing lights but it was a very unsuccessful aircraft, no Breda 65bis also, only Serie I/Isotta Fraschini K.14 engined and Serie II/Fiat A.80 engined, anyway they were used only during June 1940 - January 1941.
G.50bis or an anyway more detailed Italian one could have that ClOD issue.
What do you mean with "new countries"? AFAIK all major Countries, for the existing maps, are included in game.

China is missing and its a major country. We need a Chinese Air force in the game.

[Ace1staller]

How do you know. I was always told it would be a long tunnel with a bright light at the end. :)

Because your dead equal a lot of black. and you can't move.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Hello Team Daedalos,

Is it doable to make the dedicated server run COOPs?
Or make a seperate dedicated COOP server?

It would be a great expansion for the COOP based campaigning community.

[SPAD-1949]

Hello Team Daedalos,

Is it doable to make the dedicated server run COOPs?
Or make a seperate dedicated COOP server?

It would be a great expansion for the COOP based campaigning community.
Hey Fellow
We are not deaf!

[SPAD-1949]

As I dug up some old missions with carriers I saw, that the new nights are really dark and it was impossible to land on deck or even close up to hit the ramp... no carrier to be seen.
How were night operations be done back then (I saw a docu about the raid on Truk and night ops were mentioned) Colud this feature be implemented?

[Luno13]

As far as I'm aware, lights were used. I've seen map-makers add lights to stationary carriers, but it's impossible for moving ones. I've noticed a diamond-shaped structure on Japanese carriers under the main deck with 5 light sources. Maybe this was used to transmit info to the pilot (ie, too fast, too low, etc.)

Also, in the right conditions the wake might churn up some phosphorescent algae, leaving a long trail, lighting the way to the stern of the ship :)

[Fenrir]

Quick request:

Can we lose the regiment badges that appear on RAF aircraft? Few - if any - squadrons during wartime actually carried them, the only exceptions I know being the Polish squadrons, some Candian units (limited to a maple leaf, or, in the rare case of 403 squadron, a wolfs head on the left cowling below the ejector exhausts) and one or two of the heavy bomber units, and with the exception of the poles most of these appeared only alte in the war. Very few examples carried full versions of the squadron crest.

They're big, do little for the looks of the aircraft and in some cases aren't even in colour!

Similarly for some of the USAAF fighter units.

Cheers

[secretone]

Hi TD. Thank you for your many efforts and I am amazed, happy and thrilled to have the game just as it is today. You owe us nothing at all.

But if you computer geniuses are looking for some extra challenge then here is an idea. I know I am not the first one to request this but how about more realistic behavior from damaged aircraft? I know that some damage effects have already been modeled, of course.

examples:

If the motor is damaged - the planes go slower. AI especially.

Non-inline twins yaw and drop a wing upon loss of engine. You must respond to this emergency immediately or make a hole in the ground. Landings are not a piece of cake.

Here's another idea - model loss of motor on takeoff perhaps due to previous damage or poor maintenence; happened historically and often with horrendous consequences.

Model failure of nosewheel on some tricycle gear planes like p-38 and b-24.

Flap failures, perhaps even just on one side?

Howling wind sound when canopy shatters from gunfire? You are forced to slow down?

Shot up radio - communication failures? Nav system failure?

Flat tires on landing?

Propeller mechanism failure - not a rare occurance. Runaway prop catastrophe?

Anyway, thanks for all your fabulous efforts that have brought us all so much fun!!

[Luno13]

The last one is possible for some planes (Hurricane comes to mind, but I'm not sure if other types have this DM). If the prop governor is shot up, it becomes very easy to over-rev the engine and you have to carefully manage the prop-pitch.

A random failure should also be possible, like you mention.

[Rot Bourratif]

Could you change the 'prop pitch' controls to 'manage rpm' controls as it is what they already do and it would be less confusing?

[RegRag1977]

That's beautiful what you guys at TD are doing with this old sim!


PS Compressibility?

Would it possible to model compressibility in IL2? Just asking, not even daring to request it...

[Lagarto]

Any of the following Japanese bombers:

Ki-30 Ann
Ki-48 Lily
G3M Nell
P1Y1 Frances
Ki-49 Helen
Ki-51 Sonia
Ki-67 Peggy

Especially the Nell, such a graceful-looking aircraft.

[FC99]

PS Compressibility?

Would it possible to model compressibility in IL2? Just asking, not even daring to request it...
It's possible but problem with Il2 is too many planes. Any global change in FM results in huge amount of time spent on research. I'll guesstimate that for every hour of coding in FM department you need 100 hours of data research. That's the biggest detriment for FM changes, not the game engine by itself.

[Wiesel]

Any of the following Japanese bombers:

Ki-30 Ann
Ki-48 Lily
G3M Nell
P1Y1 Frances
Ki-49 Helen
Ki-51 Sonia
Ki-67 Peggy

Especially the Nell, such a graceful-looking aircraft.

. ! ;)

[Gloomy_Aristocrat]

I'd like to see in the next release windscreen gasoline washers in FW-190s and working emergency landing mechanism of Stuka.

[SPAD-1949]

Please TD. Since we have the Slot map, a G model P-38 wolud be fine. is it possible to extend the Slot until Rabaul and Sta Cruz isles?
What problems arise with large maps? I see my computer CDT when flying a self built Operation Vengeance after about 2 hrs of flight, just when Yamamoto is expected to appear....

[Gloomy_Aristocrat]

1) Please fix "brainless" orders of DGen. It hurts especially for Stuka campaign, when staffel flying Kanonenvogels gets suicide order to attack airfield or sent for overkill shooting of trucks instead of attacking tanks.
Flying Stuka campaign Kursk part on Kanonenvogel, I got more orders of destroying cars than tanks.
2) Ability to rescue (pick up) friendly crews behind enemy lines by picking them up in limited time would have been very bright feature.
3) Also, behavior of AI should be changed for fighter-bombers in situation of raid on heavily-defended airfield. I presume the most reasonable behavior should be "bomb and run" instead of circling around being shoot by artillery of all calibers.
4) All Bf-109 (E-K) leave shadows at the ground in a single shape of Bf-109E. Will the Team Daidalos ever fix this annoying bug?

[SPAD-1949]

Oh, please: For AI Bombers and Dive Bombers:
If intentional Target allready destroyed, put the next available enemy Object. Half of my Bombers allways come home with their Loadout. Also when you create just one set of waypoints for the first flight and attach the other flights to this first set of Waypoints.

[[URU]BlackFox]

It would be nice if possible that when you set a specific skin in the FMB that skin is applied by default even for the player's plane (today you have to select it manually, and if you forget to do it you can end up flying a desert camo in a winter map for example).

Of course you can change it afterwards, but for squadron coops it would be awesome that not everyone has to remember to change the skin.

I know there are a lot more important things to fix first, this is just an idea.

[KOFlyMaker]

My request is simple.

Any car and tanks not have speed configuration.

Ships have the speed changer, my request is only to apply this to cars and tanks.

Its possible?

Thanks and sorry my bad english.

[fruitbat]

thats a good idea, make it much easier to make columns of vehicles in mission building if you could set the speed.

[SPAD-1949]

When starting a mission with complex engine management, magnetos should be off. Just for Immersion.

[KOFlyMaker]

thats a good idea, make it much easier to make columns of vehicles in mission building if you could set the speed.

Exactly! That's the idea. Therefore we will not be restricted to pre-defined columns.

[Ace1staller]

How about some world war I aircraft and maps added to Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 so we wouldn't need mods to make WWI missions

[Racoon]

Hi all, I have a few suggestions to add to this wish list:

1- A Mediterranean/North African map, so the Spanish civil war and North African campaigns could be made realistically.

2-Inclusion of Italy and if possible Spain. 1946 includes many nations involved in that war except for Italy!! Thus a major player is missing here. P.S Italy, like Spain (the blue division), participated on the Eastern front as well.

3- Would be nice to have the (player) flyable B5N Kate, a major player in pacific theater, which has been, strangely, missing/neglected from the Pacific fighters till now while planes of lesser impact/importance during the WWII like the B-534 or CW-21 (which I'm grateful to have them) were added in the recent patches i.e made from scratch. And yet adding a cockpit to the already existing AI Kate hasn't been considered.

4- Originally the Bf-109Z canopy was that of the F series but, what we currently have there is the K series canopy.
P.S In the original IL-2 release the Bf-109Z cockpit looked like the K series from outside and the F series from the inside but now it's K series look from inside and outside.

Cheers.:grin:

[Hlander]

More stock maps. Nothing specific, even larger versions of the generic summer and winter online maps would be good.

Cheers

[RegRag1977]

It's possible but problem with Il2 is too many planes. Any global change in FM results in huge amount of time spent on research. I'll guesstimate that for every hour of coding in FM department you need 100 hours of data research. That's the biggest detriment for FM changes, not the game engine by itself.

No problem, was just a question. It's too much work indeed, anyway thank you guys for the hell of a good job you're doing for the sim and for us. We're lucky to have you all.

[RegRag1977]

Would it be possible to model a lighting effect such as wingflash (light reflected on he surface of the wings creating a flash of light? )

[SPAD-1949]

I've got another one!
Non Stationary aircraft with waypoints like vehicles or something like an invisible vehicle with spawns on any stationary aircraft. Just for mission building immersion when starting a mission....

[76.IAP-Blackbird]

the idea with the magnetos to be set off with complex Motormanagement would be great!

Its more than klick one button to start the engine :cool:

[Pfeil]

More stock maps. Nothing specific, even larger versions of the generic summer and winter online maps would be good.

Agreed. Personally the map I'm really hoping to see expanded is desert online. More inland terrain would be awesome.

A visible runway on that map would also be nice. Right now landing is guesstimating using the cloth markers at both ends, but it's very east to go off the runway on roll out. Taxiing is pretty much impossible if you're not following AI.

[EJGr.Ost_Caspar]

Agreed. Personally the map I'm really hoping to see expanded is desert online. More inland terrain would be awesome.



MTO is insufficient?

[idefix44]

Please, we need a soft (GUI) allowing:
- An easy management of the IL2 1946 Dedicated Server.
- Some script (IL2 DCG) to run.
- The display of statistics online.

IL2 SC 2.02 is able to all above but since the MDS features introduced with 4.10 version (AI planes and moving columns) it is impossible to have stats online.
IL2 FBDj manage MDS features but dont allows IL2 DCG to run.

Thx for your great work.

[Pfeil]

MTO is insufficient?

MTO is different. I feel desert online has an interesting style to it, while MTO's mainland seems featureless by comparison.

[[URU]BlackFox]

Something like this and we can stop almost every request about the desert:

http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,16159.0.html

Massive map, but very light to run, and a lot of fun and possibilities in it.

[Pursuivant]

A few months ago I posted an idea for alternate kill markings. Someone from TD sent me a PM suggesting that if I were to make the correct markings to TD standards, they might be able to incorporate them into the game.

The work is done, but I'd prefer not to show it publicly until TD says its O.K. to do so.

Could the TD team please check their PM folder and give me an email address to send my files to?

The actual "mod" I've created changes the default Soviet red star or Luftwaffe "hash mark" kill markings with kill markings used by other nationalities.

Finland: Simple white hash marks.

Note: The Finns also used aircraft silhouettes, but the markings have be generic.

U.S./Commonwealth: Iron crosses for German planes, Italian fasces roundels for Italian planes, Japanese flag or naval ensign for Japanese planes.

Note: Again, there were several variants, but the markings I chose are politically inoffensive and have different shapes for each type of kill.

Japan: Yellow chrysanthemums.

Note: The mum was chosen from a number of different kill markings because of it distinctive shape and color, because it was the most common kill marking variant, and because it was used throughout the Pacific war.

Other Nationalities: Other air forces don't appear to have recorded kill markings on their planes. For these nations, I've provided Roman numerals. For nations where that's not appropriate, the white Finnish hash marks can substitute.

If people have good documentary evidence of kill markings used by nationalities in the game which aren't listed above (e.g., France, Italy), please tell me!

[Wiesel]

Would be nice, to have some other Tracers like at 2:23 or 3:48 (nice 50cal with smoke) in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYgIE9TqOOo

Sorry, but the Russian 7,62mm have green tracers..
Would it be difficult, to change tracers?

[IceFire]

Would be nice, to have some other Tracers like at 2:23 or 3:48 (nice 50cal with smoke) in this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYgIE9TqOOo

Sorry, but the Russian 7,62mm have green tracers..
Would it be difficult, to change tracers?

Those are some nice tracers... I'd love for the smoke effects on the tracers to be affected by real world considerations. Sometimes there was smoke and other times there wasn't.. If I remember right, some of that is how the type of tracer works but some of that was atmospheric conditions as well.

Yeah Russians did and I think still do use green tracer rounds. And yes they look somewhat odd by modern sensibilities (EDIT: And by that I mean... StarWars of course).

[Lagarto]

Light bombers like SBDs, D3A1's and Ju 87s suffer irrationally high losses from AA because after delivering bombs they attempt to strafe their targets, which for example in case of tanks in senseless. Hopefully this suicidal habit of theirs can be changed.

[BadAim]

Perhaps a "one pass, haul a**" command for mission builders?

[panzer1b]

Me210 and ME210 zestroyer flyables with cockpits. Gunners would be lovely but i could live without them.

Bf110-C4 and Bf110-C4b (just reuse the bf110G2 pit as its virtually the same thing for all versions. Gunners shouldn't be to hard to make, just use the G2's gun with a mg17 and open canopy.

Any and i mean any late war german bomber so we can actually give a fighter a hard time online.

Gunner for il2 field mod.

Any american heavy bomber (although i hear the b24 will most likely make it in)

British bombers such as wellington or lancaster (the wellington would add a huge deal to african theatre and the lancaster for nigght missions)

Really any new heavy fighters ground attaxck planes or bombers.

Not that i dont appreciate or love all the fighters in the game but honestly i think there are so many to choose from that more are really not that important, and there just seems to be a lack of bombers especially heavy bombers (ofc i love the pe-8, but its not exactly much of a fight for any half decent fighter). Bombing has always been more fun for me, and although i main the bf110 as it is multirole, has plenty of loadout options, bombs, guns, rockets, and isnt completely screwed against fighters, but still id love the me210 as it was more of a match for later planes and the bf110 early versions for early war campaigns i am working on making.

but if anything id have to say the me210 as its a upgraded bf110, my favorite plane to fly, as its so adaptable to every role from heavy fighter, to fast bomber. as a second up id have to say early bf110s and some more heavy bombers....

[sniperton]

- French squads for BoF;
- I think we already have the most important planes and plane types of all major countries, with the exception of
-a British medium or heavy bomber (preferably the Wellington);
-the Sea Gladiator and/or Sea Hurricane (for early-war carrier ops);
-the Do-17 (for early-war German campaigns);
- more maps;

Thanks TD for your excellent work!

[Wiesel]

Guys, TD can't integrate the Wellington, Do-17 or another British Bomber, because Ubisoft forbids it (They reserve it for future Updates in Il2 CoD).

B5N
B-24
B-25 (another version)
(B-26)
Ju-88 C

some other planes, maybe another Bf-110 version, or some other types of existing planes. ;)

[Spudkopf]

G'day All

First up I'd like to express my ongoing gratitude to all those DT members who continue to poor so much love into Il2 46.

I have an old request (with a twist) of mine that I’d like to dredge up here. In regards to strafing damage, for sake of immersion it would be nice to see that static objects (especially aircraft) emit either smoke of flame after they have been say 40-50% damaged, as this would be very handy if you’re lucky enough to make a second pass on the same object, further and this is only a thought, in light of the upcoming shared kills, it would also be kind of nice to see a damaged/probable record for static , but especially AI targets.

And a new idea / request, in QMB could we have the choice of the starting point, in regards to airborne or not, a bit like the scramble option but allowing for the rest of the QMB scenario like target airfield to be incorporated into the mission, as I have lots of landings to my credit but very few take offs.

Finally on returning to base it would be nice if you happen prang for a meat wagon to race out to you, If you don't prang and can taxi to the hardstand, then after engine shut-down if a fuel bowser or truck or jeep could come along that kind of immersion element would just finalise the mission for me.

Spud

[gaunt1]

Me210 and ME210 zestroyer flyables with cockpits. Gunners would be lovely but i could live without them.

Any and i mean any late war german bomber so we can actually give a fighter a hard time online.


+1 for 210/410, even without playable gunner position.
Late war german bombers would be nice too. I can understand that flyable Do-217 or Ju-188 isnt possible due to lack of time, but at least we should get a He-111 H16 and a Ju-88 A14.

[panzer1b]

actually the do217 was done by modders and im not sure what ever happened to the ju188 as i know they made a 3d model, but it was never actually released.

the Do127 pit/gunners are not as great as they could be but i personally believe that even if the cockpits are not up to tip top standards they should be added in as just temporary cockpits. I dont know how you guys here feel but id much rather have a crappy cockpit then not be able to fly the plane. I know TD has quality standards but quite a few of the pits down at SAS are actually quite good and i wouldn't mind using them in the default version. Its just kindof bad that we cant really fly so many planes without mods and the server i frequent and have started making maps for just doesn't allow mods.

I know many people are against releasing temporary or not entirely finished cockpits but i really would love to just get something in the game to be able to just plain and simply fly the plane. I realy love the new cockpits with alll the super detailed parts but id still much rather live with temporary pits or not 100% perfection then no plane at all....

thats my 2 cents..

most of the planes people reallyy want are already done on many mod sites, so i fail to see a reason TD cant use them ofc after geting permission, all they'd have to do is code some class files and nothing else.


And i am all for late war ju88 and he111, id like to get the H20 as it was fully armed with 13mm mgs and could actually do some dmg before being torn apart by spits. i dont know tyo much about late war ju88s but im guessing they to were upgunned to the 13mms, as the mg81 is just measly. The mg81 should at the least get a bit more range/dmg. Its impossible to take down any competent fighter let alone a noob, and you really need to be lucky to drop anything...and im pertty sure it wasn't that bad armorpiercing wise.

Ohh and would it be to much to ask for two top guners on the ju88? It would be great to get both especially on the A17 as it doesnt have a bottom gunner so im guessing the crew would be reused for other duties as theres also no bombsighter. We need 2 top gunners on all ju88s as they dont stand a chance as is. Even if some crewes removed one of the gunners its still historcially accurate that many crews used both top gunners as well as the others. i fail to see how it makes sense to remove a gunner, the 88 needs some more firepower... The ju8 was designed to house a 5 man crew and now its more like a 4 man crew which isnt really that good. Not that many planes removed crew members.

[Mysticpuma]

Did I mention my hopes for the p-47 cockpit to get it's make-over...please? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) :rolleyes:

[CakeJumper]

1. Ground aircraft observers and GCI mechanics in scenarios. E.g., the player could receive a radio message when an enemy aircraft formation is spotted by an observer/radar, which is associated with his mission, and the message would include info about the location, estimated altitude, bearing and speed of the formation. And then the player could initiate such a message in response to Tab-8-whatever to get updated info. It's OK if the messages won't have any VA.
2. Improved bullet/round ballistics, including the effects of non-zero angle of attack of a bullet/round.
3. Engine "overcooling".
4. Improve old aircraft models to the level of more recent ones, as much as you can...
5. Ricochet from the ground/water.
6. Since some static planes can now suddenly become flying ones, I think it is reasonable to consider improving the DM of static aircrafts, at least those of them, which can be used for spawning.
7. Improve AI so it might disengage/retreat from a dogfight or not engage in the first place if the fight is not worth it, even if they didn't get damaged and don't have to RTB. E.g., if the enemy has clear advantage and it's not an AI's objective to hold them. Or, when their mission is to escort and they see their escorted planes being attacked, get out of a fight they are in, if they are in one and if they can get out of it, to protect the escorted planes.
8. Key binding profiles.
9. Filter for AI chatter, so you could select what kinds of messages would be printed on the screen or played as a sound.

[Spudkopf]

I know many people are against releasing temporary or not entirely finished cockpits but i really would love to just get something in the game to be able to just plain and simply fly the plane. I realy love the new cockpits with alll the super detailed parts but id still much rather live with temporary pits or not 100% perfection then no plane at all....

To be honest I’d have to disagree somewhat, I love flying the Stuka (yes I said the Stuka) but after flying the Tempest, Fw-190, Do-335 etc, I then struggle going back to the Stuka and this not because of the performance, but because of the low resolution cockpit, same runs true for the Bf-109s after flying a Fw-190s it's really hard to go back into a Bf-109 cockpit. The Ju-88 is also great fun to fly and the updates to the external model are excellent, however the cockpit due mainly to its low resolution textures prevents it from being the totally excellent fly it could be, something that is noticeable even after a short spell in a Fw-190 cockpit, which is by no means an overly new cockpit.

Did I mention my hopes for the p-47 cockpit to get it's make-over...please? !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) :rolleyes:

Don’t get me wrong I do very much love any new addition, the Hs-129 for example is an aircraft I’ve always wanted flyable in the game, however if it had been introduced with a Bf-109 / Ju-87 quality cockpit then I may have only flown it once or twice instead of regularly. So my personal priority would be to have all the existing cockpits like that of the P-47, Bf-109, Hurricane, etc, etc updated, or at the very least refreshed with new or higher resolution textures.

[panzer1b]

To be honest I’d have to disagree somewhat, I love flying the Stuka (yes I said the Stuka) but after flying the Tempest, Fw-190, Do-335 etc, I then struggle going back to the Stuka and this not because of the performance, but because of the low resolution cockpit, same runs true for the Bf-109s after flying a Fw-190s it's really hard to go back into a Bf-109 cockpit. The Ju-88 is also great fun to fly and the updates to the external model are excellent, however the cockpit due mainly to its low resolution textures prevents it from being the totally excellent fly it could be, something that is noticeable even after a short spell in a Fw-190 cockpit, which is by no means an overly new cockpit.



Don’t get me wrong I do very much love any new addition, the Hs-129 for example is an aircraft I’ve always wanted flyable in the game, however if it had been introduced with a Bf-109 / Ju-87 quality cockpit then I may have only flown it once or twice instead of regularly. So my personal priority would be to have all the existing cockpits like that of the P-47, Bf-109, Hurricane, etc, etc updated, or at the very least refreshed with new or higher resolution textures.

Well then i guess here's something we disagree with. I fly the planes i enjoy to fly and honestly the stuka is one of them. I even fly the il2 alot especially considering its pits are really badly modeled in comparison to for example the hs129 or pe8

i know not everyone agrees but what is the harm in adding planes if it takes little to no effort. I never said anything about you needing to fly them. Im just extremely dissapointed about all the epic ai planes which we cannot personally pilot without mods, which i sortof gave up on considering that all my fav servers block them.

but to each his own, i just fail to see how anyone would say that adding aircraft is a bad idea, who cares if the pits are crappy, at least let those who arent picky with detail pilot them, and let those who are cockpit nuts fly those planes which have high level of detail, noones stopping you from not flying a certain plane you feel is not high enough resolution, but again not adding planes does limit many of those who arent as picky.

As a side note, if you love extreme detail why dont you get Il2 cliffs of dover. That game has a very minimal plane set but each plane has extreme detail and high res textures. The only thing keeping me from getting il2COD is the lack of many plane choices, ohh and the fact it has to use steam when u have no intention of going online. Although i use it for MP only games, steam is byfar horrendous for those who prefer not to have to use 3rd party crap to boot a SP game.....

[Spudkopf]

As a side note, if you love extreme detail why dont you get Il2 cliffs of dover. That game has a very minimal plane set but each plane has extreme detail and high res textures. The only thing keeping me from getting il2COD is the lack of many plane choices, ohh and the fact it has to use steam when u have no intention of going online. Although i use it for MP only games, steam is byfar horrendous for those who prefer not to have to use 3rd party crap to boot a SP game.....

Well I do have COD, however I have had nothing but trouble getting it to run anything like Il2-46, and when I almost did get going, then Steam shut me out and it took more than a month to get access back (the customer support frankly stinks), then my PC died and I had to rebuild it. Il2-46 and ROF where the first things I put back on and have slowly been re-loading my other sims back on as well, but I’m so p’off by Steam that I’m reluctant to reload COD. And like yourself a love the variety available in Il2-46, but just wish all the cockpits where to the same standard across the sim so I could love them all equally.

[Tuco22]

but just wish all the cockpits where to the same standard across the sim so I could love them all equally.

Amen.

[CWMV]

For sure.
Heck the 109's have hardly been touched. Biggest reason I got into using mods were the beautiful 109's compared to the awful stock versions.

[Pips]

I would really like to see the Hawker Typhoon modelled. It would make a great mid-war combatant over France against Bf 109's and Fw 190's.

Having just finished reading Roland Beamont's superb "My Part Of The Sky" all I can think of is Typhoons!!

[Mysticpuma]

This should be a really easy addition to make for the game but it would be an incredibly useful addition for all Movie-makers.

Basically you create an invisible aircraft and make it neutral so it isn't targeted by Allied or Axis aircraft. IT IS ONLY FOR OFFLINE PLAY!

This then allows you to 'film' footage without the camera aircraft getting in the way of the shots. It allows the most beautiful sweeping shots of aircraft as the players aircraft is invisible and doesn't get in the way of the locked F6 view.

Here's an example of what it looks like, why it is incredibly useful and why I hope it will be considered for addition to the offline play.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W-8OZkdVx4

Cheers, MP

PS> I would like to know if this is at-least something that can be considered? I doesn't need any modelling, it just needs to be an invisible aircraft, with no engine sound, no Polygons and neutral so it isn't attacked by enemy aircraft.

Cheers

[Tolwyn]

As it stands now, the navigation lights are virtually useless.

I would like to request that they be brightened/enlarged so they can at LEAST be seen somewhat like they were in 4.09m. Perhaps not QUITE as bright, but surely there can be a compromise.

As it stands now, there is absolutely no purpose to them whatsoever.

If nothing else, a conf.ini entry, or a difficulty option?

old_navlights 1/0

1 = 4.09m behavior
0 = 4.12+ behavior

?

[Orangeman]

Any news if my favourite Japanese fighter the Ki-44 will make it into 4.12 as AI or ideally flyable?

[Treetop64]

Land-based artillery (howitzers, mortars) having the capability of indirect fire on the map would sure be nice, with the ability of mission builders to specify a target area for particular battery (while risking the abuse of some very unrealistic applications of artillery by some mission builders! :)). Currently, ship guns fire at targets beyond visual range, or at least a very long way, but land-based guns won't fire at anything unless it's directly in front of them.

[Lagarto]

I would really like to see the Hawker Typhoon modelled. It would make a great mid-war combatant over France against Bf 109's and Fw 190's.

Having just finished reading Roland Beamont's superb "My Part Of The Sky" all I can think of is Typhoons!!

+1!

[[URU]BlackFox]

A map of France like WestFront 44 would be the perfect match for a Typhoon. I don't see it happening however, due to obvious content limitations.

If TD says it is possible to include a map like that, I'm in for any help needed :D.

[Orangeman]

+1!

Definitely and a late mark Spit

[Fighterace]

Any news on the Whirlwind & Lancaster that are in the works?

[K_Freddie]

Just a note on the AI's a/c control..

Would it be possible to make the AI a/c control a bit smoother...
It's control is currently a bit primitive in such that it 'over controls' then 'over corrects' resulting in jerky movements.

In the instrumentation/control industry this is called PID, which smooths out 'overshoots' - overcontrol in the AI's case.

:)

[idefix44]

Just a note on the AI's a/c control..

Would it be possible to make the AI a/c control a bit smoother...
It's control is currently a bit primitive in such that it 'over controls' then 'over corrects' resulting in jerky movements.

In the instrumentation/control industry this is called PID, which smooths out 'overshoots' - overcontrol in the AI's case.

:)

I agree...

[Racoon]

Is it possible to integrate this 1/1 map of North Africa (from the Suez Canal to Tripoli) into the next update?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC3NEnpliSo
I found it in here:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,16159.0.html

Cheers.

[P-38L]

Hello Team

First of all, thank you for all your development and nice work.
To continue with this upgrades I have a little request if it is possible.

1. Add the Zapolare map.
http://ultrapack.il2war.com/index.php?topic=1814.0

I think is one of the most detailed maps from this simulator.

2. Please, add the R/R/R (Rearm/Refuel/Repair) option to have in the game. This will give to the simulator a more realistic experience.

Thank you very much.

[idefix44]

1- Human pilots fly and fight as they want, but the ability to use the taking off and landing flaps in fight by AIs is unrealistic.
The worst is the usage of this flaps with Spitfires and Hurricanes.
2- How many left hands have an AI ?
One for the throttle, an other for the treams and may be a third for flaps trigger. I forget the fourth used to open thermos flask of tea or coffee.
3- In the same way some AIs seem have more than a pair of eyes. Some of this pairs must to be used to keep watch on wingman or leader, ennemy planes, instrument panel and thermos flask of tea or coffee. I forget one needed to aim the target.

Adolf Galland (One of the best) don't take off with is cigar because he haven't a hand free to light it when fighting and a pair of eyes to watch closely if the ashes fall down on his boots...

I really think that the TD made a good job with AIs and I'm assured that they can improve AIs behavior to have them more realistic. IL2 is the best after more than ten years and we still use it because it is more a sim than a game. So don't be afraid TD you can increase it realistic aspect.

Thanks for your work.

[fruitbat]

Hello Team
2. Please, add the R/R/R (Rearm/Refuel/Repair) option to have in the game. This will give to the simulator a more realistic experience.



Really???????

I mean its fun, but realistic certainly not.

[Lagarto]

Just a note on the AI's a/c control..

Would it be possible to make the AI a/c control a bit smoother...
It's control is currently a bit primitive in such that it 'over controls' then 'over corrects' resulting in jerky movements.



The worst moment for the AI is when 'bandits' are called out. They all get crazy, scatter, chop throttles, drop flaps, roll, barrel and frequently crash into one another. Absolute chaos.

[petertheelf]

Just wondering how much work is involved in adding widescreen support and higher resolutions? I tried tinkering with the config files and it kinda works, but all the visual clues in open pit (plane pointers/arrows/labels etc) are off. Maybe there are other issues but I haven't noticed.
My point is that most (if not all) modern Dispays are widescreen so it would make sense to update the game to support these resolutions - at least the 16:9 ratio. For instance 1920x1080 since it's probably the most common one.
I would like to add my voice to support higher resolutions, FOV fixes and widescreen support. Almost everyone is now at least using a widescreen monitor, while many are venturing into triple screens with the advent of Nvidia surround and other widescrren graphics displays. Modders have come up with various solutions, but it takes time, and it would be great to see a native support for Nvidia and crossfire.

[Ace1staller]

Is it possible to integrate this 1/1 map of North Africa (from the Suez Canal to Tripoli) into the next update?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oC3NEnpliSo
I found it in here:
http://www.sas1946.com/main/index.php/topic,16159.0.html

Cheers.

I see a mistake on the map for sure. The port of Alexandria is suppose to be spelled Alexandria, not Alejandria :!: so someone better fix that map first before its imported to the patch. The City (or port) Alexandria was named by Alexander the Great in Ancient times and the City name never changed once in history and into WWII so that's the mistake I point out.

[panzer1b]

For the AI, would it be possible to keep them from spamming their ammo at longer ranges then are normally effective?

I rarely if ever fire at a plane at past .2KM, and especially the shkas stream is just waste at .6KM or farther.

Ive been playing some offline campaigns honing air combat skills and just hate watching the stream of shkas from well out of effective range.

Im not sure how exactly it can be edited but it would make the most sense for the ai to differentiate cannons from mgs and at the same time engage fighters much closer while attacking bombers from farther off to avoid their defenses

Again im not 100% sure how realistic pilots do it but i personally find the spamming of ai to be a bit annoying and ofc it always if fun to laugh at the pilot who just watsed their entire clip trying to hit me from .6KM away....



Ohh also one more thing that drives me nuts is the MG81 on bombers, shooting from farther away then the bullets themselves even go. Id personally increase the mg81's range and firepower just a bit to make it a useful weapon for defensive fire. But as it is i have to say at least make the turrets not shoot unless target will actually be hit by a bullet or 2.....

Ohh and im not sure if i mentioned this before but please add a 2nd top gunner to the ju88 especially the late torp one which doesnt have a bottom gunner

[Spudkopf]

I would like to add my voice to support higher resolutions, FOV fixes and widescreen support. Almost everyone is now at least using a widescreen monitor, while many are venturing into triple screens with the advent of Nvidia surround and other widescrren graphics displays. Modders have come up with various solutions, but it takes time, and it would be great to see a native support for Nvidia and crossfire.

Come to think of it this would be my number one wish above all else, so it’s a very big plus 1 for native wide screen for me as well.

I always use 1920x1080 and the narrowed vertical FOV that results from using this resolution can be a tad annoying, and it’s especially noticeable in the already very limited FOV of the Hs-129.

I also like to Shift F1 on landings and take-offs so I can see more of the instruments, but at 1920x1080 even that is still is not enough (I like to be able to see the three green).

Alternatively if true native wide support can not be provided could the end user be able to increase the max FOV to regain the clipped vertical FOV at 1920x1080, or at the very least make this an option for the Shift F1 view?

[Pursuivant]

Is it possible to integrate this 1/1 map of North Africa (from the Suez Canal to Tripoli) into the next update?

Due to their agreement with 1C, DT can't do anything which competes with future Storm Of War releases - that includes the Mediterranean Theater.

[Lagarto]

Due to their agreement with 1C, DT can't do anything which competes with future Storm Of War releases - that includes the Mediterranean Theater.

Hmmm.. They're about to release a central Tunisia map. Isn't that the Mediterranean Theater?

[SPAD-1949]

Due to their agreement with 1C, DT can't do anything which competes with future Storm Of War releases - that includes the Mediterranean Theater.

Looks like there is some new negotiating necessary.

[Mysticpuma]

It may have been mentioned in the 600+ posts (good luck reading through that TD!)

AI, is there any news on an update to the spin/roll/spin/kamikaze - crash into ground or Spin/roll/climb/roll/climb/roll/climb....bye-bye!

I think I mentioned the hope for an updated P-47 cockpit and increased loadout?

Agree about native 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 (player choice I know about FoV cut-off)

Is it possible to update the old maps with the Slovakia Summer and Winter textures (where possible?)

The Alps to be included?

Cheers, MP

[Lagarto]

Is it possible to update the old maps with the Slovakia Summer and Winter textures (where possible?)



Some (if not most) original maps are so pitifully small and ugly by current standards that it would make more sense to create a new map of the same area from scratch. I don't mean to say the old maps didn't serve their purpose - only that they were made for computers of the era long gone.

[Krt_Bong]

I would like to see the New Guinea New Britain Map in 4.12 since it has been complete for a long time and I already have a bunch of missions for it, (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)

[K_Freddie]

The worst moment for the AI is when 'bandits' are called out. They all get crazy, scatter, chop throttles, drop flaps, roll, barrel and frequently crash into one another. Absolute chaos.

:grin:;):cool::-) :confused: :-P

That's funny !!

[ECV56_Guevara]

Il2 lacks of 2 things IMHO:
-Radar, that it s a WIP by DT I think.
-Recce camera. My wish is a recce camera. I dont know how, maybe a modified bombsight, a super zoom view, perhaps as loadout of a few planes as Spitfires, Fockes, P-38 or Mosquitos...A real recce mission, that makes you sweat, get in the bad guys nest, take a few shots and get away as quickly as you can. Could be very usefull for campaings in coop mission, I know several ones that could take benefit from an adition like that.
I really don t know if DT members read this thread, but I will be glad to collect info if needed.
A very good web about aerial recon:
http://www.airrecce.co.uk/index.html

[Woke Up Dead]

I would like to be able to script a precise sequence of AI's maneuvers in QMB, or at least FMB. For example: "Enemy plane does a split-S then climbs steeply to a speed of 250km/h, then performs a chandelle to the right."

[Lagarto]

I would like to see the New Guinea New Britain Map in 4.12 since it has been complete for a long time and I already have a bunch of missions for it, (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)

Now you caught my attention! :) Could we see some pics?

[Pips]

I would like to see the New Guinea New Britain Map in 4.12 since it has been complete for a long time and I already have a bunch of missions for it, (hint, hint, nudge, nudge)

Absolutely! :)

[SPAD-1949]

Well, I might have forgotten or overread, if any of the posters on 64pages of wishlist have mentioned to implement Checkyersix' Command& Control Mod 2.0. This would bring a friggin lot of immersion and all kinds of radar and whatsoever... if possible and unless there is some animosity between checkyersix and TD...

[SPAD-1949]

Absolutely! :)
Eventually add the space until south of Bougainville for the jap version of operation vengeance...

[idefix44]

Is't possible to randomize the clouds location. We can change the clouds altitude but missions after missions on a same map they are always in the same places...

[Jure_502]

Well, I might have forgotten or overread, if any of the posters on 64pages of wishlist have mentioned to implement Checkyersix' Command& Control Mod 2.0. This would bring a friggin lot of immersion and all kinds of radar and whatsoever... if possible and unless there is some animosity between checkyersix and TD...

AFAIK night-fighter tehniques are allready considered and in development by the TD.

[shelby]

about bombers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lr--WmpDr_8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R5IOo5AgwU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Rb2-UrYqn8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFoX2bYlSx8

[panzer1b]

also as ive recently really got into dogfighting and not just bombing stuff, could we have a early war bf109?

maybee a B model or at the least something that was equipped with just mg17s like the early pre war bf109s

i know a few were used and it would really fit biplane missions as the early 109s were used during that time

not that i dont like the emils, but it would also be cool to see some more variety of older models especially pre war ones

and while im at it please add a spit mk1, like a version without cannons. This would fit into the makeshift BOB campaign im working on especially early on. (for anyone whos interested im working on a stock map and just simulating the BOB theatre as obviously il2 cod doesnt allow us to make any BOB content officially) id love to get il2 cod but i hate steam for anything that is not a MP only game, so i guess it wont happen.

[gaunt1]

As far as I know, DT cant add anything from CoD due to the agreements with ubisoft/1C. So no Spit Mk.1, no Do-17, and not even Bf-110C4.

I think we need a "taboo list", with a list of forbidden content (like CoD aircraft, Korean war, or NG aircraft).

[Lagarto]

I think we need a "taboo list", with a list of forbidden content (like CoD aircraft, Korean war, or NG aircraft).

Hopefully this list won't include BoF aircraft like Dewoitine D. 520.

[shelby]

about fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiZ9AO7_z44
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WljkYNI50U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wRWtZxgWrN4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jy6yXKlnoNg

[The_WOZ]

- Separate difficulty settings for external/internal - airplane/ground units padlock.
If that's not possible, then fix the padlock system so that locking on units beyond visual range is not possible. (Including clearing the padlock at the start of a new sortie in dogfight servers)

- Posibility to use the gunner positions when mouse=1 in conf.ini

- He 112 B

- PZL P.24

- A-36 Apache

A big thanks to Team Daidalos for all the great work they have done and continue to do for this great sim!

[shelby]

about russian fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWs8v-2mGtw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1GR6EfPj2k
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZqLZp7e_eQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8bk2b9hrMw

[Racoon]

I see a mistake on the map for sure. The port of Alexandria is suppose to be spelled Alexandria, not Alejandria :!:
It's not a mistake, that's how Alexandria is spelled in Spanish, and the reason why is because the maker of this map is from Spain, look at his You tube channel ; http://www.youtube.com/user/RedEyeJir He's also used Spanish article for some city names like "El" Cairo.
so someone better fix that map first before its imported to the patch. The City (or port) Alexandria was named by Alexander the Great in Ancient times and the City name never changed once in history and into WWII so that's the mistake I point out.
The map's German name; Afrika, or city name pronunciations in Spanish, it's still geographically accurate, an indispensable feature for campaigns. I'll take that map over a generic-one fits all- dessert map of nowhere.

Cheers.

[I/JG53_Witt]

Fiat G-55 flyable!!!
Since arriving S.M.79 we haven't a new Italian aircraft flyable!

http://www.150gct.it/users/150GCT_Italo/G55-2.jpg

[shelby]

about P-38
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBI_ZInBKy4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz17_rEOXNk

[shelby]

about german fighters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f0HILUciXxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X50uuLYDQoM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uy3YPtrR1RI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCs_9sPtlRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_yz_FLSvaI

[SaQSoN]

about youtube videos

Pardon me my slowness, but what exactly about them all? And what are those videos have to do with the topic, called "4-12 wish list"?

Or, in a short words, what the heck are you trying to say by flooding this thread with youtube links?

[Wiesel]

01.07.2012

time for a new update ghihi ;)

[shelby]

Pardon me my slowness, but what exactly about them all? And what are those videos have to do with the topic, called "4-12 wish list"?

Or, in a short words, what the heck are you trying to say by flooding this thread with youtube links?
to fix some mistakes in the upcoming update....

[SaQSoN]

What mistakes?

[shelby]

lagg3 and me109e machine guns, mig flying in dogfight and some more....

[SaQSoN]

There are no mistakes with the things you listed. Unless you can clearly describe a mistake exactly what it is and provide documents (meaning, written/printed official test results, not propaganda movies), proving the mistake exists.

[Treetop64]

lagg3 and me109e machine guns, mig flying in dogfight and some more....

"Vague" doesn't even begin to describe the above statement, which the author presents as evidence of "mistakes". Especially the "some more" part.

No one argues against critical analysis (which the above is certainly not), but make at least make a small effort at validating your case. Others would be more willing to listen and think about what you say, regardless of whether they agree or not.

[shelby]

Look i just put some documentaries about planes of ww2 so if they are based in reality then the planes in game need some work to be more realistic but i don't know if that can be done and i don't have official documents to argue

[CWMV]

What the Heck are you talking about?
What do you think is off?
Can you please state your case and remove your spam posts?

[[URU]BlackFox]

Documentarys can even say that the Spitfire won the BoB alone shelby. I wouldn't just present a case with a few TV programs. If we paid attention to that we would be flying the "Dogfights" series UFOs instead of realistic, believable planes that actually obey pshysics.

So unless you can provide official documents, or test results, as many others have done, I'm afraid you won't get much luck in being paid attention to.

There are still things to review, no doubt about it, but youtube documentarys don't help the process.

[ECV56_Guevara]

Hey DT mail sent!

[IceFire]

Look i just put some documentaries about planes of ww2 so if they are based in reality then the planes in game need some work to be more realistic but i don't know if that can be done and i don't have official documents to argue

"Be more realistic" is about as vague as you can get. The best and only way to make anything more realistic is to delve in to the detailed technical specifications. You can certainly use anecdotal evidence to provide some level of flavour and to get the average person a general idea of "how things really were" but ultimately, in a simulation, you need to rely on numbers. The harder the number (i.e. the more quantifiable) the better.

That's why we try and dig up test pilot reports, scientific testing results, data tables, etc. to get the best possible result. It's extremely difficult to model something that is 60 years old with some details washed away with time but on the whole, WWII is extremely well documented, and it's easy enough to get most of the details right.

Not to offend but a couple of TV documentaries are good fun to watch but of little value in simulation discussions. The detail levels required for simulation are much too high for the average TV documentary... it's the wrong audience. Even for us simulation pilots... "flying the aircraft" is great but there is a whole other level going on underneath in computer code that is well above and beyond the average simulation pilot. Nevermind the average TV watcher.

[SPAD-1949]

to fix some mistakes in the upcoming update....
Like when they talk about G-Models the keep showing E- Models or when talking about the 410 showing a Ju 88 or so?
This movies are full of some mistakes...

[Treetop64]

Don't get me started on "Dogfights". My mood turns foul just thinking about it. To think that many naively devour everything that show tosses them, ugh! It's not just the "pirouetting P-51" episode, either. There are egregious offenses over multiple episodes.

A prime example of gaining ratings at the expense of everything else.

[Lagarto]

A smashed-windscreen visual effect would be a nice addition. In real life hits against armor-glass windscreens (from rear gunners, debris or head-on passes) often resulted in smashed windscreens, nearly obliterated forward view but no actual penetration into the cockpit. However, in the game such hits are shown as simple bullet holes. Not very realistic IMHO.

[Pursuivant]

A smashed-windscreen visual effect would be a nice addition.

+1

It could be based on the oil splash effect, and cued whenever the cockpit takes heavy damage.

[nimitstexan]

New ships (IJN & USN BBs, IJN and RN CAs, IJN CL & CLV, and SS).

[Ace1staller]

New ships (IJN & USN BBs, IJN and RN CAs, IJN CL & CLV, and SS).

Definitely,We need more German Ships for sure. Also we need more Destroyers like a generic Destroyer for The US navy, Japanese navy, and the British and the German Navy. Also, We lack French Warships in the game. Also can we have Axis transport ships so we don't have to use the Allied transport ships ?

Also I can we fix the icon issue for Japanese planes ? When ever I select a blank skin for a Japanese plane, the Japanese icon doesn't show up. For example, it happen to the Ki-61 , the Ki-84, and A6m Zero.

[Lagarto]

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask? :)

[Ace1staller]

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask? :)

SAAF air force ? Definitely 10000000000000000000000000000000 +

[Pursuivant]

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I don't think that these requests would specifically interfere with the ban on MTO content and they'd be very easy to do. They already exist as mods.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask? :)

There are a lot of early war British bombers which aren't in the game, and it would take a massive amount of time and effort to model them all.

The Martin Maryland would be a good choice if we had to pick just one, since it served with France as well as the UK - thus giving us a "French" medium bomber.

[Lagarto]

The infamous 'ban on the MTO content' must be some kind of urban legend - not long ago DT announced that central Tunisia map is in the works, hopefully to be released with 4.12.

[IceFire]

Could we have SAAF (South Africans) added to the list of air forces, please? They played important part in MTO campaigns.
Also, desert/MTO skins for static Hurricanes, Blenheims, and for Matilda tanks.

I guess Martin Maryland would be too much to ask? :)

That does sound like a good idea. I know the markings difference is subtle but well worth it. I've been doing some RAF and Commonwealth markings and scheme research. I'll add RAAF to my list if I get a chance to ever finish that... I'd love to see some basically good official markings for RAF aircraft that are standardized across the board. A lot of models were set up with 2 point rather than 3 point markings (i.e. top and bottom of wings plus fuselage) but we can try.

[Lagarto]

Any South Africans around to record a speech pack? :)

[Bolelas]

Not very important, but if it is easy to implement, i would like to ask team Daidalos to add the sound of the weels touching the ground to inside the cockpit. They can only be eard from the outside view. When performing a very smooth landing we have almost no info if the plane has already touched the ground. I have assisted some landings in the co-pilot seat of twin engine small planes, and i heard the squeak of the weels touching the ground. And at that stage of the flight the engine is not making big noise... Plus on real life planes there is felt a little vibration that can not be felt on the game, so i think it would be nice,... the sound allready exists on the game. Ok, not so realistic if we land on a grass airfild, but the sound is also there on the grass...

[Cloyd]

Any South Africans around to record a speech pack? :)

Head over to SAS. Plenty of South Africans there.

Cloyd

[IceFire]

Any South Africans around to record a speech pack? :)

Not that a South African specific pack would be bad (it'd be great to have)... But aren't there at least one SA speaker in the GB pack? I know there is a Canadian and perhaps an Australian. RAF squads did tend to get a fair mix from the commonwealth.

[Spudkopf]

Not very important, but if it is easy to implement, i would like to ask team Daidalos to add the sound of the weels touching the ground to inside the cockpit. They can only be eard from the outside view. When performing a very smooth landing we have almost no info if the plane has already touched the ground. I have assisted some landings in the co-pilot seat of twin engine small planes, and i heard the squeak of the weels touching the ground. And at that stage of the flight the engine is not making big noise... Plus on real life planes there is felt a little vibration that can not be felt on the game, so i think it would be nice,... the sound allready exists on the game. Ok, not so realistic if we land on a grass airfild, but the sound is also there on the grass...

I like it this is a nice idea, only down side is when I balls up a landing with a bumpsie - daisy affair i.e. Squelch.....squelch.....squelch.....rumble.....squ elch.....rumble :)

[SPITACE]

it would be great to see Gyro gunsights in the spitfire :-P [with out using mods]

[Lagarto]

I guess mission builders would appreciate not only the introduction of SAAF, but also adding more USAAF units, esp. from the 12th Air Force, to the FMB list. And Free French squadrons. I’m no expert on the French, but I'll be happy to prepare a list of USAAF units for inclusion, if it can help.

[Fenice_1965]

An improvement of the views system can be' interesting. The possibility to exclude padlock only for planes. Ground targets are way more difficult to spot and some servers will appreciate the possibility to exclude padlock for planes and live it for tanks.
Bb

[Tuphlandng]

How many years for a Flyable B 17 Cockpit?

[ElAurens]

How many years for a Flyable B 17 Cockpit?

With a dedicated team of a minimum of two working on just the B-17, and doing all the stations needed to make it proper for DT's high specs, I'd say two years. And that would be for the simpler E model, not the more difficult G with chin turret. And I'd be very happy with the E as we actually have the maps to use it on.

Midway, The Solomons, and soon, New Guinea/New Britain. Also a real map of Java would be good for it too as a squadron of 17Es and P40s was sent there very early on to act as a delaying action till we could build our forces in Australia.

[TelluricSummer]

Salute!

I know many like the addons like HSFX, UltraPack, etc ... I however, am a fan of the game Vanilla, always preferable, I think it brings less bugs, setting a best performance of the aircraft settled, a behavior for the game engine generally more effective, etc..
My Daidalos Team's Wish List for IL2FB begins by placing historical maps such as the Invasion of England, simple things that are not built to be present in the addons ...
Would like a further limitation to the roof of historic flight of the aircraft, which would allow a more real way to fly where it really would appreciate the possibilities and the knowledge of the plane ...
Stock sounds better resolved, more immersible!

Daidalos Team Thanks for the huge and constant work.

[Ace1staller]

Salute!

I know many like the addons like HSFX, UltraPack, etc ... I however, am a fan of the game Vanilla, always preferable, I think it brings less bugs, setting a best performance of the aircraft settled, a behavior for the game engine generally more effective, etc..
My Daidalos Team's Wish List for IL2FB begins by placing historical maps such as the Invasion of England, simple things that are not built to be present in the addons ...
Would like a further limitation to the roof of historic flight of the aircraft, which would allow a more real way to fly where it really would appreciate the possibilities and the knowledge of the plane ...
Stock sounds better resolved, more immersible!

Daidalos Team Thanks for the huge and constant work.

However the channel map will not make it to DT yet

[Ace1staller]

I guess mission builders would appreciate not only the introduction of SAAF, but also adding more USAAF units, esp. from the 12th Air Force, to the FMB list. And Free French squadrons. I’m no expert on the French, but I'll be happy to prepare a list of USAAF units for inclusion, if it can help.

Yep we would definitely need more French Squadrons because there was more than one squadron in the French Air force in WWII

[fruitbat]

One thing i would like to see as a mission builder is the ability to have composite flights, at several points in the war in missions i would like to make more accurately there were mixed planes flying in units, Bf109E1's and E4's, Spit MkII's and Vb's, razor back 51's and bubble tops etc.....

would be a nice feature if its possible.

(i know some of the examples i mentioned aren't in the stock game, they were just some of the first that came to my head, but there are many examples that are in the stock game planeset).

cheers fruitbat

[Lagarto]

The Martin Maryland would be a good choice if we had to pick just one, since it served with France as well as the UK - thus giving us a "French" medium bomber.

Reading the new, superb "History of the Mediterranean Air War 1940-1945" by Christopher Shores I learned, to my surprise, that Marylands were used as improvised long-range fighters, quite successfully intercepting Ju-52s bringing supplies from Crete to the Western Desert - that is, until they were decimated by Ju 88C-6's of I./NJG 2.

[SPAD-1949]

Did I allready mention my wish, that the Magnetos should be set to off when starting from an Airfield with skills set to complex engine management?

[GBrutus]

One thing i would like to see as a mission builder is the ability to have composite flights, at several points in the war in missions i would like to make more accurately there were mixed planes flying in units, Bf109E1's and E4's, Spit MkII's and Vb's, razor back 51's and bubble tops etc.....

would be a nice feature if its possible.

(i know some of the examples i mentioned aren't in the stock game, they were just some of the first that came to my head, but there are many examples that are in the stock game planeset).

cheers fruitbat

+1, would love to see this.

[bitterman]

1. possibility to add objects to the map dynamically. by this I mean it would be cool to add objects to the map at mission's runtime. it can be done via server's console: you type smth like "create xxx", where xxx is description of what you add in XML/JSON/INI format.
example: we need to to add AI path (in mission-file style):

[Wing]
237ShAP10
[237ShAP10]
Planes 2
Skill0 2
Skill1 1
Class air.IL_2_1940Late
Fuel 100
weapons 4xFAB50_8xRS132
[237ShAP10_Way]
TAKEOFF 161931.69 102708.47 0 0 &0
NORMFLY 153600.00 117200.00 500.00 300.00 &0
GATTACK 134492.44 142258.58 500.00 300.00 0_Chief 3 &0
NORMFLY 140228.57 132971.43 300.00 400.00 &0
LANDING 163084.27 101555.89 0 0 &0

to do that we type (or send via socket) to console such string (JSON format as example)

create {"section":"Wing", "title":"237ShAP10", "description": {"Planes":"2", "skills": {"Skill0":"2", "Skill1":"1"}, "model":"IL_2_1940Late", "fuel":"100","weapons":"4xFAB50_8xRS132"},"way":{"TAKEOFF": {...},"NORMFLY": {...},"GATTACK": {...},"NORMFLY": {...},"LANDING": {...}}}

and after that new AI appears in currently running mision ({...} is left not to do bigger mess)

2. Introduce clear identification of AI in mission's file and in server's log.
the problem: when some event happens with AI vehicle, you can not identify that vehicle by reading server's log. E.g.:
[10:37:47 PM] Bf-109G-2 shot down by username:La-5 at 41059.33 19015.783
here pilot with nickname "username" shots AI Bf-109G-2, but there no info about AI: no wing name, no position in wing, no team info. If I shot AI, so server's commander can not know what to do: give me points for the enemy kill or give me penalty for the friendly kill. So, it's would be cool to have smth like that to be logged instead of the example from above:
[10:37:47 PM] II_JG5_210:0:Bf-109G-2 shot down by username:La-5 at 41059.33 19015.783
where II_JG5_210 is wing name and 0 is a position in that wing. And this should be applied to the ground AI too.

3. Add server console command to get planes' positions.
There is command
user nickname STAT
to see user's statistics. I suppose there should be a command like this
user nickname POS
to see user's current position. Similar command should be to see AI vehicles' positions too. Of course, now X,Y,Z position and current direction can be obtained from UDP packets on the server side. But it looks like a dirty hack and this is bad, because using PCAP library to look through packets needs system's administrative rights.

4. Is using JVM 1.3 still OK? There 1.7 exits for about 1 year already.

5. Is it possible to get current set of map's images? There's a software "MapTools" and it has images of maps and of terrain heights in PNG format. But as I can see, this soft is not updating any more. It should be nice to have always up-to-date images set. And it would be nice to have 100% correspondence between maps and their's images. I mean: if you have a road on a map, and you have that's map image, and you want to place a vehicle on the road using the image, you must be sure that vehicle will appear exactly on that road but not moved some [kilo]meters to the bottom or so. And it would be really grate to have all possible info about map stored in XML, for example.

6. Vehicle and weapon comparison system. I know that info about vehicles, weapons and objects can be obtained by dumping java classes from the memory. Using those classes we can calculate how powerful vehicle's gunnery is. You need to calc number of guns, number of shells, and using TNT_equivalent we can say how powerful some vehicle is. It's really a hack work that looks like Sisyphean toil. It would be cool to have some convenient way to compare one tank to another, one bomber to another bomber, one fighter to another fighter. As I said, it can be done manually, but the way is really weird.

7. Is it possible to get some server's console-interaction protocol or API? When we connecting to the server console's socket, we can send and get text string to fulfill some requests. But it's bad, because server needs to parse text request, process it, serialize result to text again and send it back to socket's client, where it will be deserialized from text. Is there some way to operate with standard data types or some structures or objects? And is it possible to output log messages not only to the log file, but to some another socket also?

----
I'm developing modern server commander and those points are really important. I can provide my help if it needed.

[lebobouba]

Sorry, I've a little problem with my pics...:(

[secretone]

How about some additional aircraft-appropriate tactics programmed into the AI? For example:

1. FW-189 would circle around tightly while under attack taking more advantage of its great manoeverability.

2. F4F pairs would perform Thach Weave to counter manoeverability of Japanese fighters.

3. IL-2 would perform defensive Lufbery Circle and also Circle of Death manoever.

[Alien]

@lebobouba try pasting just the links to the screens between and , delete the HTML

[Pursuivant]

1. FW-189 would circle around tightly while under attack taking more advantage of its great manoeverability.

It's not just the Fw-189. Unless they're flying in formation or are making a bomb or photo-recon run, just about any multi-engined plane piloted by a competent pilot should try to move defensively when it's attacked.

For example, Saburo Saki had great praise for the pilot of an Australian PV-1 Harpoon who managed to evade his guns for 10 minutes before Saki finally shot him down. Apparently, the doomed Harpoon pilot made the very most of his plane, varying the power to each engine to perform literally death-defying maneuvers.

Also, any aircraft which encounters flak should take evasive maneuvers if possible. Against heavy flak, this include things like randomly changing direction and/or altitude (by +/- 125-150 meters) every 20-30 seconds.

2. F4F pairs would perform Thach Weave to counter manoeverability of Japanese fighters.

3. IL-2 would perform defensive Lufbery Circle and also Circle of Death manoever.

The ability to command planes under your command to perform historical team maneuvers like the Thatch Weave, Lufbery Circle or Circle of Death, as well as basic fighter tactics like the "drag and bag" or "boxing" an opponent caught in a 4-1 fight, would be very welcome.

Other commands which would be useful would be the ability to command planes under your command to attack from a particular direction - i.e., "2 o'clock high" and to attack a particular formation of planes rather than just your padlocked target (or the ability to padlock multiple targets simultaneously).

This would allow you to split the defensive fire of bomber formations by giving commands like "Section 1 - attack high bomber formation from 2 o'clock high. Section 2 - attack high bomber formation from 12 o' clock level. Section 3 - attack low bomber formation from 10 o'clock low. Section 4 - attack attack low bomber formation from 12 o'clock level."

[Lagarto]

Wish we had Bristol Bombay for transport duties in MTO (DGen campaigns need transport aircraft for transfer, intercept and paradrop missions) – AI only, of course.
Arguably the most famous desert interception – Bf 109s of JG 27 shot down the Bristol Bombay of No 216 Sqn carrying Lt.Gen. William Gott who had just been appointed commander of the 8th Army.

[Ace1staller]

Wish we had Bristol Bombay for transport duties in MTO (DGen campaigns need transport aircraft for transfer, intercept and paradrop missions) – AI only, of course.
Arguably the most famous desert interception – Bf 109s of JG 27 shot down the Bristol Bombay of No 216 Sqn carrying Lt.Gen. William Gott who had just been appointed commander of the 8th Army.

I agree with that and I just posted a thread about it in the 4.12 discussion well I only request it and I didn't put the picture in it.

[Fenice_1965]

Following a test of the new 4.11 view settings on the Skies of Valor server, I noticed that many players are asking a setting able to exclude just external padlock.
Actually this is not possible. If you totally remove padlock no Track IR users are badly handcapped and also it is really hard (for all) to distinguish between friend or foe small ground targets.
Map design can limit this, spacing the ground troops, but this really interferes with the creation of live environments were tanks and troops are enough near to fight.
If you remove external enemy view and leave padlock enabled you still have the possibility to fight externally in arcade way, following targets continuously with no possibility for them to escape and this is a thing that most pilots do not want, because if not hardcore, they're enough mature to appreciate challenging environments.
The IL2 community is old, there are not so many rookies around, most appreciate challenging environments.
Hope it can be done with the new patch, just to complete the optimum work done on the view settings with 4.11.
BB

[idefix44]

The IL2 community is old, there are not so many rookies around, most appreciate challenging environments.


I agree. :grin:

[Asheshouse]

Heres a request for a "small" change in the gui.

When using Full Mission Builder View/Object/Show you will always see the object displayed in its Summer skin.

Could this be changed so that if you are on a Desert or Winter map you would see the object in the Desert or Winter skin, as appropriate?

This only affects the drop down viewer. The object appears ok if you zoom into the map.

Ashe

[maxim42]

Hmmm, what about Arado Ar-196? There is lack of flyable hydroplanes in il-2 1946 and the plane I've just mentioned would be good choice to make it flyable. It doesn't have any internal view but the external model is pretty nice so making the cockpit would be, in my opinion, good idea.

[Spudkopf]

Hmmm, what about Arado Ar-196? There is lack of flyable hydroplanes in il-2 1946 and the plane I've just mentioned would be good choice to make it flyable. It doesn't have any internal view but the external model is pretty nice so making the cockpit would be, in my opinion, good idea.

G’day maxim42

As much as I’d also love to see the Ar-196 flyable in the sim as it is one of my sentimental favourites, it’s a simple but sad fact that the current mission set does not readily cater well to it or many of the other non-flyable recon types, sure it was armed with a 20mm cannon in each of the wings and a 7.9mm MG in the lower cowl, but these appear to be more or less ineffective against even the smallest water craft within the sim, at least this has been my experience as I’ve strafed and emptied magazines into enough of them on numerous occasions to no avail, however the ability to carry a 50kg bomb under each wing may be the only saving grace as these would be little more effective on such targets.

Unfortunately unless or until the vulnerability of these smaller class of vessels is reduced, something that I’d like to add to the wish list by the way, then the only realistic option available to this plane is for it to continue being available only as target fodder :(

[magot]

Heres a request for a "small" change in the gui.

When using Full Mission Builder View/Object/Show you will always see the object displayed in its Summer skin.

Could this be changed so that if you are on a Desert or Winter map you would see the object in the Desert or Winter skin, as appropriate?

This only affects the drop down viewer. The object appears ok if you zoom into the map.

Ashe
You think for better show how is present current texture on model in viewer?
Due work on ground units objects? Don´t forgot that DT do not open interface for mods, for "public" it´s not open possibilty create skins for ground units and look how present winter skin on tank.

But I understand: you need any mod tool IL2 model viewer :)

[Bearcat]

Might it be possible to incorporate skins in the model viewer for a given AC or skinnable object? That way we could look at new skins without having to launch a mission.

[lebobouba]

For me, it's rather the update of missing or incorrect loadouts.
It concerns as well the playable aircrafts as the AI.
These modifications do not ask for big works.

(here are some proofs for : Fw190D9, Hurricane Field Mod, FM-2, Ki-43, P-51D, Spitfire Mk Vb & Vc, P-400 & P-39N, B5N2)

http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9895/190d9300ldroptank.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/2606/huricanevvsrs82.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img708.imageshack.us/img708/2839/fm2wildcathvar.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/8338/ki43ihayabusadroptank.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/2932/p51d78thfshvar.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/2157/spitfiremkvb250lbs.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3373/spitvb500lbsbomb.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2296/spitfiremkvctropsaaf250.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/9303/spitfirevbtropdroptank.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img837.imageshack.us/img837/2025/p400500lbs.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/695/p400airacobra75galdropt.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/695/p400airacobra75galdropt.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img818.imageshack.us/img818/2298/b5n2800kg.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

http://img16.imageshack.us/img16/913/mix250kg60kg.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

[lebobouba]

Ah, a little error for the P-39N
This is the good pic:

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/6184/p39n75galdtdt.jpg
By null (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/null) at 2012-07-21

[kennel]

Panzerschrek rocket loadout for FW190F8, The Luftwaffe seem lacking in this area

[gaunt1]

You mean the Panzerblitz? Panzerschreck was a shoulder launched AT rocket.

[_1SMV_Gitano]

You mean the Panzerblitz? Panzerschreck was a shoulder launched AT rocket.

Panzerschrek was also used as stop-gap measure before the Panzerblitz came into service, but it was very difficult to use with proficence beacuse it had to be launched from close distance from the target.

[kennel]

I mean Panzerblitz rockets, I stand corrected

[IceFire]

So I was thinking (always dangerous) that a few small scale dogfight maps could be really useful to have. Updated textures, new layout, something generic west/central Europe and generic Pacific islands/jungle would be great. Big enough to do some interesting stuff but with a low object count (NW Germany is great for example but high object count means we get too much lag on the map).

[Mysticpuma]

Just reading through the development of the P-40 and the fact that the skins will no-longer work due to the mirroring of part of the model being fixed I wonder if it will be possible to do the same with the P-38 model?

many years have passed since the P-38 model turned up in IL2 and yet historically accurate skins are almost impossible to be made for it as the tail is mirrored and any numbers or letters added are instantly reversed.

I wonder if it will be possible to have (even a new P-38 version like the P-38J-25-LO) modelled so that the skins can be added correctly?

This is a wish list thread...it's just a wish ;)

(But if it's a choice between this and the P-47 cockpit remodel....P-47 every time ;) )

[DKoor]

So I was thinking (always dangerous) that a few small scale dogfight maps could be really useful to have. Updated textures, new layout, something generic west/central Europe and generic Pacific islands/jungle would be great. Big enough to do some interesting stuff but with a low object count (NW Germany is great for example but high object count means we get too much lag on the map).

+1

[Aviar]

Just reading through the development of the P-40 and the fact that the skins will no-longer work due to the mirroring of part of the model being fixed I wonder if it will be possible to do the same with the P-38 model?

many years have passed since the P-38 model turned up in IL2 and yet historically accurate skins are almost impossible to be made for it as the tail is mirrored and any numbers or letters added are instantly reversed.

I wonder if it will be possible to have (even a new P-38 version like the P-38J-25-LO) modelled so that the skins can be added correctly?

This is a wish list thread...it's just a wish ;)

(But if it's a choice between this and the P-47 cockpit remodel....P-47 every time ;) )

We already have a P-38J-25-LO.....oh wait, that's a mod....:rolleyes:

Aviar

[Fenice_1965]

I think that smaller, but realistic (geographically speaking) areas are a good idea.
Usually dogfight servers do not use wide areas, but a good variety and historical resemblance is interesting.
Historical and geographic resemblance gives the correct mood to the battles, the correct sense of being there.
One great miss in stock version is some Philippines areas (Leite etc.) which are useful to build late war maps in the pacific teather (ki84s were used mainly there).

[Ace1staller]

I think that smaller, but realistic (geographically speaking) areas are a good idea.
Usually dogfight servers do not use wide areas, but a good variety and historical resemblance is interesting.
Historical and geographic resemblance gives the correct mood to the battles, the correct sense of being there.
One great miss in stock version is some Philippines areas (Leite etc.) which are useful to build late war maps in the pacific teather (ki84s were used mainly there).

I'm going to make the Swiss map however, I need all the things of map making

edited : Its cancelled now

[IceFire]

I think that smaller, but realistic (geographically speaking) areas are a good idea.
Usually dogfight servers do not use wide areas, but a good variety and historical resemblance is interesting.
Historical and geographic resemblance gives the correct mood to the battles, the correct sense of being there.
One great miss in stock version is some Philippines areas (Leite etc.) which are useful to build late war maps in the pacific teather (ki84s were used mainly there).

Yep thats an entire area totally ignored at present in the Pacific theater. We have nearly all of the aircraft serving in that theatre too.

[ElAurens]

A map of an area of South East China for late war 14th. Air Force operations during the large Japanese "Ichi Go" offensive would be great as well. We will have all the planes for that, give or take, too.

[IceFire]

A map of an area of South East China for late war 14th. Air Force operations during the large Japanese "Ichi Go" offensive would be great as well. We will have all the planes for that, give or take, too.

Just need the Ki-44 :)

Aside from that... yep that'd be a great place to go visit.

[Mysticpuma]

Just reading through the development of the P-40 and the fact that the skins will no-longer work due to the mirroring of part of the model being fixed I wonder if it will be possible to do the same with the P-38 model?

many years have passed since the P-38 model turned up in IL2 and yet historically accurate skins are almost impossible to be made for it as the tail is mirrored and any numbers or letters added are instantly reversed.

I wonder if it will be possible to have (even a new P-38 version like the P-38J-25-LO) modelled so that the skins can be added correctly?

This is a wish list thread...it's just a wish ;)



Shameless quote for my comment (allow me one please). I realise there is a modded version of the P-38J-25-LO, which is why I mentioned it as it's not an official aircraft.

I do hope we will get a chance to 'skin' a P-38 without the mirroring issue though if the same can be done for the p-40?

Cheers, MP

[Piepmatz]

@ Team Daidalos, can you Guys make a update of the EuroPlanes.txt and the PacificPlanes.txt? I'm working on a big DGen mod and going crazy that I can't add some new "stock" planes into the campaigns like Hs-123, Ju88 C-6, Do217, etc.
THX

[RegRag1977]

Would it be possible to have the standard windows confirmation box (the one with the "are you sure you want to delete" etc.) for when you want to delete a campaign or a pilot.

I'm stupid i know, but sometimes i just erased a pilot or campaign accidentaly with no room to recover... XD Being a pilot is such a dangerous job you know XD

[zakkandrachoff]

*HE112 rumanian air force
*include more maps of the east front please. (and fix the airfields, (stalingrad and Crimean map please)
*more complete QMB with fix the bug in 4.11.1 (and more multiple options)
*north italian new maps 1944-1945
*the Bachem 349 NAtter will be a nice improvment
*korea map for QMB
*better 109 cockpits details of cutface

[zakkandrachoff]

and cztx_Caucasus map for QMB !!!

[SPAD-1949]

Would it be possible to have the standard windows confirmation box (the one with the "are you sure you want to delete" etc.) for when you want to delete a campaign or a pilot.

I'm stupid i know, but sometimes i just erased a pilot or campaign accidentaly with no room to recover... XD Being a pilot is such a dangerous job you know XD


Yes this and the One Step Back on FMB.

[Stoli151]

An option to bind an axis in the HOTAS to the pilots view. I use an analog gamepad to play from my laptop when away from home(my flightstick is too cumbersome and fragile to pack). I wish I could bind my view to one of the analog sticks, so I could look around with it. Then I wouldn't have to use a crummy mouse emulator to do it. Actually the mouse emulator wouldn't be bad if it could self center.

[Fighterace]

Is it possible to have the later J models of the P-38 w/dive recovery flaps or the earlier P-38 E,F,G or H variants with cockpits?

[SPAD-1949]

Is it possible to have the later J models of the P-38 w/dive recovery flaps or the earlier P-38 E,F,G or H variants with cockpits?

The J Models have this flaps. You need to activate the dive brake.
+1 for the earier Models, especially the G Model for the Yamoto Mission :-)

[IceFire]

The J Models have this flaps. You need to activate the dive brake.
+1 for the earier Models, especially the G Model for the Yamoto Mission :-)

Actually the P-38J as represented in game is from an earlier block and does not have dive brakes. The P-38L on the other hand does.

I'd love to see some earlier models. Could do with a slightly lower performing model for mid war Pacific scenarios.

[julien673]

Its is possible to have some SWOTL campagn, just curious ? Tks for all DT :)

[Mysticpuma]

Actually the P-38J as represented in game is from an earlier block and does not have dive brakes. The P-38L on the other hand does.

I'd love to see some earlier models. Could do with a slightly lower performing model for mid war Pacific scenarios.

With the skin mirroring fixed of-course! ;)

[ElAurens]

Actually the P-38J as represented in game is from an earlier block and does not have dive brakes. The P-38L on the other hand does.

I'd love to see some earlier models. Could do with a slightly lower performing model for mid war Pacific scenarios.

Absolutely need early models for proper New Guinea scenarios. The introduction of the Ki-61 caused a near panic situation and and had General Kenney burning up the telex wires begging for more modern aircraft.

[lebobouba]

I approve totally this idea for the first variants of P-38's.

Not only for PTO, it will be a good addition for MTO and ETO too.

[secretone]

The p-38 was one of the most interesting fighters of the Second World War. It offered very good performance and possibly even greater potential that was never realized because of production choices made by factory and material planners. From what I have read, p-38's were relatively hard to fly as fighters because there was 2 of everything and the turbosupercharging created all sorts of problems with the Allisons that were never fully solved, especially in the earlier series; resulting in many blown engines. I have read that the cockpits did not have adequate heating at altitude which created further problems. And if you lost an engine while low and slow, you could die. And how difficult an aircraft is to fly definitely has a direct bearing in real world combat situations where split second decisions can result in either life or death; I think that the IL-2 simulator could be improved in that department although, of course, there would be many complaints by aficionados about how their favorite mount was "ruined". I do not know if this is already the case but perhaps some select online servers could require complex engine management CEM in order to participate as an advanced or expert player for those interested in achieving greater realism?

Fighting against slower Japanese aircraft at low altitude was one thing but tangling with the faster German fighters in the stratosphere proved to be quite another. That is partly why General Doolittle withdrew the p-38 from 8th Air force escort service even though he called it "the sweetest flying plane in the sky".

I would like to see the p-38 model in game somehow reflect even more of this fascinating complexity in terms of its strengths and also its technical and ergonomic limitations. Could DT model an engine blown due to detonation? That would be a new and interesting feature!

[IceFire]

I would like to see the p-38 model in game somehow reflect even more of this fascinating complexity in terms of its strengths and also its technical and ergonomic limitations. Could DT model an engine blown due to detonation? That would be a new and interesting feature!
They likely can... I think the bigger issue with that is that the P-38 wasn't the only temperamental aircraft in the lineup. If one aircraft's reliability quirks are modelled than the whole lineup should get the same treatment. Not a small job by any means and somewhat more subjective and difficult to get right than the massive work done to add specific G load tolerances per plane for example.

[IceFire]

I'd love to see an upgrade to the campaign system and the integration of NTRK cutscenes. Right now campaign NTRK's are played back in Excellent mode instead of Perfect and to my knowledge there is no way to change that. Also you have to use the sepia/film reel filter as there is no option to turn that on or off.

Not sure what's involved but it might be nice to implement the sepia/film filter in Perfect mode and then make that a toggle option for campaign cutscenes.

[secretone]

They likely can... I think the bigger issue with that is that the P-38 wasn't the only temperamental aircraft in the lineup. If one aircraft's reliability quirks are modelled than the whole lineup should get the same treatment. Not a small job by any means and somewhat more subjective and difficult to get right than the massive work done to add specific G load tolerances per plane for example.

Good point IceFire! Now I do not know what the life expectancy of IL-2 1946 is given that a whole new generation of games like ClOD and BOM is being developed. But modeling aircraft so that they show more of their true "personalities" is exactly the sort of thing that stimulates me as an aviation historian and would keep me coming back to play again and again with renewed interest in whatever time we have left with this platform. I do not know how long the process of upgrading aircraft flight models to include more of their fundamental personality quirks would take, it is certainly a much bigger job than I initially assumed; however, getting closer to the technical reality of flying these beautiful but deadly mechanical beasts fascinates me. Selfish perhaps, but I am as entitled to my preferences as anyone else, right?

Learning about the frightful problems encountered with Hawker Typhoons, p-38's and b-29's makes the accomplishments of the men and women who built, flew, maintained and modified them to win battles seem that much greater to me. The b-29, rushed into production with little time to mature, for example had many, many problems including engines that tended to burn with alarming frequency. However, it is also perhaps the greatest plane of the war, faults and all, because it was used to successfully accomplish what no other could do - it ended things.

[IceFire]

Definitely! I love those little details... like Yak wings peeling off due to unauthorized paint use is another "favourite" of mine. And the Typhoons chronic tail shedding issues were definitely another big problem that never was fully solved.

Some of these are probably more difficult to implement than others and sometimes so rare or specific to one circumstance that it's difficult to really do a full tally. Still cool to think about anyways.

[JimmyBlonde]

Please please PLEASE get rid of the stupidity where the players aircraft weathercocks into the wind whilst sitting stationary on the ground with the engine running.

[Pursuivant]

Please please PLEASE get rid of the stupidity where the players aircraft weathercocks into the wind whilst sitting stationary on the ground with the engine running.

Are you sure that isn't just torque from the engine?

[SPAD-1949]

Are you sure that isn't just torque from the engine?
Very very sure

Just create a lineup where you can easyly see your companions on the strip set a good side wind and watch how they easily hold direction, whilst your only chance is wheathercocking.
Just give it a try:

One mission where you start at the runway. Allyour companions are able to take of, you only turn into the wind. Maybe its better with pedals and one sided breaking.
The other mission is the sabe, but you start out of the box and your goal is, to reach the runway and try to start.

Good luck

[Lagarto]

Since the difficulty menu now has several sub pages, could you stop it from resetting to default with every new campaign?

Also, wish you looked into the following issue: it happens quite often that when I switch from autopilot to manual at the moment of encountering enemy, it turns out that my aircraft has partially lowered flaps, which are stuck in that position.

[Pursuivant]

Since the P-36 is getting some love and the Finnish version will be flyable, perhaps TD would consider non-flyable variants of this ubiquitous early war fighter. Most of these models just require trivial FM/DM tweaks.

China - H75M - with fixed landing gear. It could also double for the H75N used by Thailand against the French and Japanese.

France/Finland - H75A-1, H75A-2. Captured survivors of the Battle of France were later sold to Finland by the Germans.

Great Britain - Mohawk I-IV. Basically, just H75A1-A4 from French stocks, but with slightly altered throttles and Vickers .303 machine guns. Could just be a loadout option for the H75A1-4, but also carried bombs. Used in East Africa by SAAF. Used by the RAF and RIAF the CBI until 1944.

Finland - 1942 upgunned H75A, with 1 or 2 .50 caliber MG in the nose and 2-4 0.303 caliber BMG in each wing, or the 12.7mm Berezin UB or LKk/42 heavy machine guns. Might possibly just be a loadout option for existing H75A-4.

Netherlands/KNIL - 75A-7. 1,200 hp Cyclone, 1 0.5 caliber MG and 1 0.303 MG in the cowl and 2 .303 MG in wings, or 4 .303 in - two in nose, one in each wing). Provision to carry up to 6 50 lb. bombs. Used extensively during defense of Dutch East Indies against the Japanese.

USA - P-36A-3 mounting four .30 in (7.62 mm) machine guns in the wings in addition to nose armament. Served at Pearl Harbor, scoring two of the first U.S. kills of the war.

[l_commando]

As an avid offline player, my only major wish besides more planes would be more dynamic campaigns. I, for one, would especially love to see dynamic campaigns for the Italians in North Africa, American fighters and bombers in Italy and the East Indies, the Americans and RAF in Normandy, and dynamic campaigns for our new planes such as the Il-4 and Pe-8

[Pursuivant]

As an avid offline player, my only major wish besides more planes would be more dynamic campaigns. I, for one, would especially love to see dynamic campaigns for the Italians in North Africa, American fighters and bombers in Italy and the East Indies, the Americans and RAF in Normandy, and dynamic campaigns for our new planes such as the Il-4 and Pe-8

There's lots of good content at web sites like Mission 4 Today:

http://www.mission4today.com/

But, you're right. Nobody seems to have developed missions or campaigns for the new flyable aircraft.

Official missions, which showcase the new aircraft in their historical context, would be welcome.

[IceFire]

There's lots of good content at web sites like Mission 4 Today:

http://www.mission4today.com/

But, you're right. Nobody seems to have developed missions or campaigns for the new flyable aircraft.

Official missions, which showcase the new aircraft in their historical context, would be welcome.

Any requests?

[Juri_JS]

As an avid offline player, my only major wish besides more planes would be more dynamic campaigns. I, for one, would especially love to see dynamic campaigns for the Italians in North Africa, American fighters and bombers in Italy and the East Indies, the Americans and RAF in Normandy, and dynamic campaigns for our new planes such as the Il-4 and Pe-8

Here are a number of user made dynamic campaigns:
http://www.axis-and-allies-paintworks.com/download.php?list.55

The campaigns done by me require the new DGen by Asura.

[Pursuivant]

Any requests?

If I were greedy, I'd say there there should be a least one mission for every player flyable plane in the game.

Realistically, maybe just a few missions for the new planes since 4.10 that many people aren't familiar with, with realistic formations, operating altitudes, objectives and opponents. My top picks would be the new He-111 variants and the CW-21.

He-111-6 and -12 Torpedo/Fritz X: Shipping Strike in the Gulf of Finland or off Norway.

CW-21: KNIL vs. too many Japanese (A6M2 and/or G4M) over Malaysia.

CW-21 or H75A: Hypothetical China, RAF or RIAF intercept against too many Ki-21/Ki-27 or A5M/G4M over Burma.

[IceFire]

If I were greedy, I'd say there there should be a least one mission for every player flyable plane in the game.

Realistically, maybe just a few missions for the new planes since 4.10 that many people aren't familiar with, with realistic formations, operating altitudes, objectives and opponents. My top picks would be the new He-111 variants and the CW-21.

He-111-6 and -12 Torpedo/Fritz X: Shipping Strike in the Gulf of Finland or off Norway.

CW-21: KNIL vs. too many Japanese (A6M2 and/or G4M) over Malaysia.

CW-21 or H75A: Hypothetical China, RAF or RIAF intercept against too many Ki-21/Ki-27 or A5M/G4M over Burma.
There might be enough material for a short CW-21 campaign...I'd have to look into that.

I do have to ask... you do know that we put together a half dozen to a dozen single missions featuring some of the new aircraft for the last couple of patches, right? The Hs-129 and IL-4 in particular get a bit of attention.

There isn't much in the way of historical scenarios that could be done with the CW-21. They had a short combat career and not exactly on any maps we have although the Singapore map could provide some limited possibility. It's mostly a hopeless fight where the players side looses all of their aircraft :)

[RegRag1977]

We definitely need new dgen campaigns. I wonder if there is a TD plan to improve DGEN and to create some new ones? That would be nice...